Podcasts about tisch college

In this episode, Kelly Brownell speaks with Jerold Mande, CEO of Nourish Science, adjunct professor at the Harvard School of Public Health, and former Deputy Undersecretary for Food Safety at the USDA. They discuss the alarming state of children's health in America, the challenges of combating poor nutrition, and the influence of the food industry on public policy. The conversation explores the parallels between the tobacco and food industries and proposes new strategies for ensuring children reach adulthood in good health. Mande emphasizes the need for radical changes in food policy and the role of public health in making these changes. Transcript So, you co-founded this organization along with Jerome Adams, Bill Frist and Thomas Grumbly, as we said, to ensure every child breaches age 18 at a healthy weight and in good metabolic health. That's a pretty tall order given the state of the health of youth today in America. But let's start by you telling us what inspired this mission and what does it look like to achieve this in today's food environment? I was trained in public health and also in nutrition and in my career, which has been largely in service of the public and government, I've been trying to advance those issues. And unfortunately over the arc of my career from when I started to now, particularly in nutrition and public health, it's just gotten so much worse. Indeed today Americans have the shortest lifespans by far. We're not just last among the wealthy countries, but we're a standard deviation last. But probably most alarming of all is how sick our children are. Children should not have a chronic disease. Yet in America maybe a third do. I did some work on tobacco at one point, at FDA. That was an enormous success. It was the leading cause of death. Children smoked at a higher rate, much like child chronic disease today. About a third of kids smoked. And we took that issue on, and today it's less than 2%. And so that shows that government can solve these problems. And since we did our tobacco work in the early '90s, I've changed my focus to nutrition and public health and trying to fix that. But we've still made so little progress. Give us a sense of how far from that goal we are. So, if the goal is to make every child reaching 18 at a healthy weight and in good metabolic health, what percentage of children reaching age 18 today might look like that? It's probably around a half or more, but we're not quite sure. We don't have good statistics. One of the challenges we face in nutrition is, unfortunately, the food industry or other industries lobby against funding research and data collection. And so, we're handicapped in that way. But we do know from the studies that CDC and others have done that about 20% of our children have obesity about a similar number have Type 2 diabetes or the precursors, pre-diabetes. You and I started off calling it adult-onset diabetes and they had to change that name to a Type 2 because it's becoming so common in kids. And then another disease, fatty liver disease, really unthinkable in kids. Something that the typical pediatrician would just never see. And yet in the last decade, children are the fastest growing group. I think we don't know an exact number, but today, at least a third, maybe as many as half of our children have a chronic disease. Particularly a food cause chronic disease, or the precursors that show they're on the way. I remember probably going back about 20 years, people started saying that we were seeing the first generation of American children that would lead shorter lives than our parents did. And what a terrible legacy to leave our children. Absolutely. And that's why we set that overarching goal of ensuring every child reaches age 18 in good metabolic health. And the reason we set that is in my experience in government, there's a phrase we all use - what gets measured gets done. And when I worked at FDA, when I worked at USDA, what caught my attention is that there is a mission statement. There's a goal of what we're trying to achieve. And it's ensuring access to healthy options and information, like a food label. Now the problem with that, first of all, it's failed. But the problem with that is the bureaucrats that I oversaw would go into a supermarket, see a produce section, a protein section, the food labels, which I worked on, and say we've done our job. They would check those boxes and say, we've done it. And yet we haven't. And if we ensured that every child reaches age 18 at a healthy weight and good metabolic health, if the bureaucrats say how are we doing on that? They would have to conclude we're failing, and they'd have to try something else. And that's what we need to do. We need to try radically different, new strategies because what we've been doing for decades has failed. You mentioned the food industry a moment ago. Let's talk about that in a little more detail. You made the argument that food companies have substituted profits for health in how they design their products. Explain that a little bit more, if you will. And tell us how the shift has occurred and what do you think the public health cost has been? Yes, so the way I like to think of it, and your listeners should think of it, is there's a North star for food design. And from a consumer standpoint, I think there are four points on the star: taste, cost, convenience, and health. That's what they expect and want from their food. Now the challenge is the marketplace. Because that consumer, you and I, when we go to the grocery store and get home on taste, cost, and convenience, if we want within an hour, we can know whether the food we purchased met our standard there. Or what our expectations were. Not always for health. There's just no way to know in a day, a week, a month, even in a year or more. We don't know if the food we're eating is improving and maintaining our health, right? There should be a definition of food. Food should be what we eat to thrive. That really should be the goal. I borrowed that from NASA, the space agency. When I would meet with them, they said, ' Jerry, it's important. Right? It's not enough that people just survive on the food they eat in space. They really need to thrive.' And that's what WE need to do. And that's really what food does, right? And yet we have food, not only don't we thrive, but we get sick. And the reason for that is, as I was saying, the marketplace works on taste, cost and convenience. So, companies make sure their products meet consumer expectation for those three. But the problem is on the fourth point on the star: on health. Because we can't tell in even years whether it's meeting our expectation. That sort of cries out. You're at a policy school. Those are the places where government needs to step in and act and make sure that the marketplace is providing. That feedback through government. But the industry is politically strong and has prevented that. And so that has left the fourth point of the star open for their interpretation. And my belief is that they've put in place a prop. So, they're making decisions in the design of the product. They're taste, they gotta get taste right. They gotta get cost and convenience right. But rather than worrying what does it do to your health? They just, say let's do a profit. And that's resulted in this whole category of food called ultra-processed food (UPF). I actually believe in the future, whether it's a hundred years or a thousand years. If humanity's gonna thrive we need manmade food we can thrive on. But we don't have that. And we don't invest in the science. We need to. But today, ultra-processed food is manmade food designed on taste, cost, convenience, and then how do we make the most money possible. Now, let me give you one other analogy, if I could. If we were CEOs of an automobile company, the mission is to provide vehicles where people can get safely from A to point B. It's the same as food we can thrive on. That is the mission. The problem is that when the food companies design food today, they've presented to the CEO, and everyone gets excited. They're seeing the numbers, the charts, the data that shows that this food is going to meet, taste, cost, convenience. It's going to make us all this money. But the CEO should be asking this following question: if people eat this as we intend, will they thrive? At the very least they won't get sick, right? Because the law requires they can't get sick. And if the Midmanagers were honest, they'd say here's the good news boss. We have such political power we've been able to influence the Congress and the regulatory agencies. That they're not going to do anything about it. Taste, cost, convenience, and profits will work just fine. Couldn't you make the argument that for a CEO to embrace that kind of attitude you talked about would be corporate malpractice almost? That, if they want to maximize profits then they want people to like the food as much as possible. That means engineering it in ways that make people overeat it, hijacking the reward pathways in the brain, and all that kind of thing. Why in the world would a CEO care about whether people thrive? Because it's the law. The law requires we have these safety features in cars and the companies have to design it that way. And there's more immediate feedback with the car too, in terms of if you crashed right away. Because it didn't work, you'd see that. But here's the thing. Harvey Wiley.He's the founder of the food safety programs that I led at FDA and USDA. He was a chemist from academia. Came to USDA in the late 1800s. It was a time of great change in food in America. At that point, almost all of families grew their own food on a farm. And someone had to decide who's going to grow our food. It's a family conversation that needed to take place. Increasingly, Americans were moving into the cities at that time, and a brand-new industry had sprung up to feed people in cities. It was a processed food industry. And in order to provide shelf stable foods that can offer taste, cost, convenience, this new processed food industry turned to another new industry, a chemical industry. Now, it's hard to believe this, but there was a point in time that just wasn't an industry. So these two big new industries had sprung up- processed food and chemicals. And Harvey Wiley had a hypothesis that the chemicals they were using to make these processed foods were making us sick. Indeed, food poisoning back then was one of the 10 leading causes of death. And so, Harvey Wiley went to Teddy Roosevelt. He'd been trying for years within the bureaucracy and not making progress. But when Teddy Roosevelt came in, he finally had the person who listened to him. Back then, USDA was right across from the Washington Monument to the White House. He'd walk right over there into the White House and met with Teddy Roosevelt and said, ' this food industry is making us sick. We should do something about it.' And Teddy Roosevelt agreed. And they wrote the laws. And so I think what your listeners need to understand is that when you look at the job that FDA and USDA is doing, their food safety programs were created to make sure our food doesn't make us sick. Acutely sick. Not heart disease or cancer, 30, 40 years down the road, but acutely sick. No. I think that's absolutely the point. That's what Wiley was most concerned about at the time. But that's not the law they wrote. The law doesn't say acutely ill. And I'll give you this example. Your listeners may be familiar with something called GRAS - Generally Recognized as Safe. It's a big problem today. Industry co-opted the system and no longer gets approval for their food additives. And so, you have this Generally Recognized as Safe system, and you have these chemicals and people are worried about them. In the history of GRAS. Only one chemical has FDA decided we need to get that off the market because it's unsafe. That's partially hydrogenated oils or trans-fat. Does trans-fat cause acute illness? It doesn't. It causes a chronic disease. And the evidence is clear. The agency has known that it has the responsibility for both acute and chronic illness. But you're right, the industry has taken advantage of this sort of chronic illness space to say that that really isn't what you should be doing. But having worked at those agencies, I don't think they see it that way. They just feel like here's the bottom line on it. The industry uses its political power in Congress. And it shapes the agency's budget. So, let's take FDA. FDA has a billion dollars with a 'b' for food safety. For the acute food safety, you're talking about. It has less than 25 million for the chronic disease. There are about 1400 deaths a year in America due to the acute illnesses caused by our food that FDA and USDA are trying to prevent. The chronic illnesses that we know are caused by our food cause 1600 maybe a day. More than that of the acute every day. Now the agency should be spending at least half its time, if not more, worrying about those chronic illness. Why doesn't it? Because the industry used their political power in Congress to put the billion dollars for the acute illness. That's because if you get acutely ill, that's a liability concern for them. Jerry let's talk about the political influence in just a little more detail, because you're in a unique position to tell us about this because you've seen it from the inside. One mechanism through which industry might influence the political process is lobbyists. They hire lobbyists. Lobbyists get to the Congress. People make decisions based on contributions and things like that. Are there other ways the food industry affects the political process in addition to that. For example, what about the revolving door issue people talk about where industry people come into the administrative branch of government, not legislative branch, and then return to industry. And are there other ways that the political influence of the industry has made itself felt? I think first and foremost it is the lobbyists, those who work with Congress, in effect. Particularly the funding levels, and the authority that the agencies have to do that job. I think it's overwhelmingly that. I think second, is the influence the industry has. So let me back up to that a sec. As a result of that, we spend very little on nutrition research, for example. It's 4% of the NIH budget even though we have these large institutes, cancer, heart, diabetes, everyone knows about. They're trying to come up with the cures who spend the other almost 50 billion at NIH. And so, what happens? You and I have both been at universities where there are nutrition programs and what we see is it's very hard to not accept any industry money to do the research because there isn't the federal money. Now, the key thing, it's not an accident. It's part of the plan. And so, I think that the research that we rely on to do regulation is heavily influenced by industry. And it's broad. I've served, you have, others, on the national academies and the programs. When I've been on the inside of those committees, there are always industry retired scientists on those committees. And they have undue influence. I've seen it. Their political power is so vast. The revolving door, that is a little of both ways. I think the government learns from the revolving door as well. But you're right, some people leave government and try to undo that. Now, I've chosen to work in academia when I'm not in government. But I think that does play a role, but I don't think it plays the largest role. I think the thing that people should be worried about is how much influence it has in Congress and how that affects the agency's budgets. And that way I feel that agencies are corrupted it, but it's not because they're corrupted directly by the industry. I think it's indirectly through congress. I'd like to get your opinion on something that's always relevant but is time sensitive now. And it's dietary guidelines for America. And the reason I'm saying it's time sensitive is because the current administration will be releasing dietary guidelines for America pretty soon. And there's lots of discussion about what those might look like. How can they help guide food policy and industry practices to support healthier children and families? It's one of the bigger levers the government has. The biggest is a program SNAP or food stamps. But beyond that, the dietary guidelines set the rules for government spending and food. So, I think often the way the dietary guidelines are portrayed isn't quite accurate. People think of it in terms of the once (food) Pyramid now the My Plate that's there. That's the public facing icon for the dietary guidelines. But really a very small part. The dietary guidelines are meant to help shape federal policy, not so much public perception. It's there. It's used in education in our schools - the (My) Plate, previously the (Food) Pyramid. But the main thing is it should shape what's served in government feeding programs. So principally that should be SNAP. It's not. But it does affect the WIC program- Women, Infants and Children, the school meals program, all of the military spending on food. Indeed, all spending by the government on food are set, governed by, or directed by the dietary guidelines. Now some of them are self-executing. Once the dietary guidelines change the government changes its behavior. But the biggest ones are not. They require rulemaking and in particular, today, one of the most impactful is our kids' meals in schools. So, whatever it says in these dietary guidelines, and there's reason to be alarmed in some of the press reports, it doesn't automatically change what's in school meals. The Department of Agriculture would have to write a rule and say that the dietary guidelines have changed and now we want to update. That usually takes an administration later. It's very rare one administration could both change the dietary guidelines and get through the rulemaking process. So, people can feel a little reassured by that. So, how do you feel about the way things seem to be taking shape right now? This whole MAHA movement Make America Healthy Again. What is it? To me what it is we've reached this tipping point we talked about earlier. The how sick we are, and people are saying, 'enough. Our food shouldn't make us sick at middle age. I shouldn't have to be spending so much time with my doctor. But particularly, it shouldn't be hard to raise my kids to 18 without getting sick. We really need to fix that and try to deal with that.' But I think that the MAHA movement is mostly that. But RFK and some of the people around them have increasingly claimed that it means some very specific things that are anti-science. That's been led by the policies around vaccine that are clearly anti-science. Nutrition is more and more interesting. Initially they started out in the exact right place. I think you and I could agree the things they were saying they need to focus on: kids, the need to get ultra-processed food out of our diets, were all the right things. In fact, you look at the first report that RFK and his team put out back in May this year after the President put out an Executive Order. Mostly the right things on this. They again, focus on kids, ultra-processed food was mentioned 40 times in the report as the root cause for the very first time. And this can't be undone. You had the White House saying that the root cause of our food-caused chronic disease crisis is the food industry. That's in a report that won't change. But a lot has changed since then. They came out with a second report where the word ultra-processed food showed up only once. What do you think happened? I know what happened because I've worked in that setting. The industry quietly went to the White House, the top political staff in the White House, and they said, you need to change the report when you come out with the recommendations. And so, the first report, I think, was written by MAHA, RFK Jr. and his lieutenants. The second report was written by the White House staff with the lobbyists of the food industry. That's what happened. What you end up with is their version of it. So, what does the industry want? We have a good picture from the first Trump administration. They did the last dietary guidelines and the Secretary of Agriculture, then Sonny Perdue, his mantra to his staff, people reported to me, was the industries- you know, keep the status quo. That is what the industry wants is they really don't want the dietary guidelines to change because then they have to reformulate their products. And they're used to living with what we have and they're just comfortable with that. For a big company to reformulate a product is a multi-year effort and cost billions of dollars and it's just not what they want to have to do. Particularly if it's going to change from administration to administration. And that is not a world they want to live in. From the first and second MAHA report where they wanted to go back to the status quo away from all the radical ideas. It'll be interesting to see what happens with dietary guidelines because we've seen reports that RFK Jr. and his people want to make shifts in policies. Saying that they want to go back to the Pyramid somehow. There's a cartoon on TV, South Park, I thought it was produced to be funny. But they talked about what we need to do is we need to flip the Pyramid upside down and we need to go back to the old Pyramid and make saturated fat the sort of the core of the diet. I thought it meant to be a joke but apparently that's become a belief of some people in the MAHA movement. RFK. And so, they want to add saturated fat back to our diets. They want to get rid of plant oils from our diets. There is a lot of areas of nutrition where the science isn't settled. But that's one where it is, indeed. Again, you go back only 1950s, 1960s, you look today, heart disease, heart attacks, they're down 90%. Most of that had to do with the drugs and getting rid of smoking. But a substantial contribution was made by nutrition. Lowering saturated fat in our diets and replacing it with plant oils that they're now called seed oils. If they take that step and the dietary guidelines come out next month and say that saturated fat is now good for us it is going to be just enormously disruptive. I don't think companies are going to change that much. They'll wait it out because they'll ask themselves the question, what's it going to be in two years? Because that's how long it takes them to get a product to market. Jerry, let me ask you this. You painted this picture where every once in a while, there'll be a glimmer of hope. Along comes MAHA. They're critical of the food industry and say that the diet's making us sick and therefore we should focus on different things like ultra-processed foods. In report number one, it's mentioned 40 times. Report number two comes out and it's mentioned only once for the political reasons you said. Are there any signs that lead you to be hopeful that this sort of history doesn't just keep repeating itself? Where people have good ideas, there's science that suggests you go down one road, but the food industry says, no, we're going to go down another and government obeys. Are there any signs out there that lead you to be more hopeful for the future? There are signs to be hopeful for the future. And number one, we talked earlier, is the success we had regulating tobacco. And I know you've done an outstanding job over the years drawing the parallels between what happened in tobacco and food. And there are good reasons to do that. Not the least of which is that in the 1980s, the tobacco companies bought all the big food companies and imparted on them a lot of their lessons, expertise, and playbook about how to do these things. And so that there is a tight link there. And we did succeed. We took youth smoking, which was around a 30 percent, a third, when we began work on this in the early 1990s when I was at FDA. And today it's less than 2%. It's one area with the United States leads the world in terms of what we've achieved in public health. And there's a great benefit that's going to come to that over the next generation as all of those deaths are prevented that we're not quite seeing yet. But we will. And that's regardless of what happens with vaping, which is a whole different story about nicotine. But this idea success and tobacco. The food industry has a tobacco playbook about how to addict so many people and make so much money and use their political power. We have a playbook of how to win the public health fight. So, tell us about that. What you're saying is music to my ears and I'm a big believer in exactly what you're saying. So, what is it? What does that playbook look like and what did we learn from the tobacco experience that you think could apply into the food area? There are a couple of areas. One is going to be leadership and we'll have to come back to that. Because the reason we succeeded in tobacco was the good fortune of having a David Kessler at FDA and Al Gore as Vice President. Nothing was, became more important to them than winning this fight against a big tobacco. Al Gore because his sister died at a young age of smoking. And David Kessler became convinced that this was the most important thing for public health that he could do. And keep in mind, when he came to FDA, it was the furthest thing from his mind. So, one of it is getting these kinds of leaders. Did does RFK Jr. and Marty McCarey match up to Al Gore? And we'll see. But the early signs aren't that great. But we'll see. There's still plenty of time for them to do this and get it right. The other thing is having a good strategy and policy about how to do it. And here, with tobacco, it was a complete stretch, right? There was no where did the FDA get authority over tobacco? And indeed, we eventually needed the Congress to reaffirm that authority to have the success we did. As we talked earlier, there's no question FDA was created to make sure processed food and the additives and processed food don't make us sick. So, it is the core reason the agency exists is to make sure that if there's a thing called ultra-processed food, man-made food, that is fine, but we have to thrive when we eat it. We certainly can't be made sick when we eat it. Now, David Kessler, I mentioned, he's put forward a petition, a citizens' petition to FDA. Careful work by him, he put months of effort into this, and he wrote basically a detailed roadmap for RFK and his team to use if they want to regulate ultra-processed stuff food. And I think we've gotten some, initially good feedback from the MAHA RFK people that they're interested in this petition and may take action on it. So, the basic thrust of the Kessler petition from my understanding is that we need to reconsider what's considered Generally Recognized as Safe. And that these ultra-processed foods may not be considered safe any longer because they produce all this disease down the road. And if MAHA responds positively initially to the concept, that's great. And maybe that'll have legs, and something will actually happen. But is there any reason to believe the industry won't just come in and quash this like they have other things? This idea of starting with a petition in the agency, beginning an investigation and using its authority is the blueprint we used with tobacco. There was a petition we responded, we said, gee, you raised some good points. There are other things we put forward. And so, what we hope to see here with the Kessler petition is that the FDA would put out what's called an advanced notice of a proposed rulemaking with the petition. This moves it from just being a petition to something the agency is saying, we're taking this seriously. We're putting it on the record ourselves and we want industry and others now to start weighing in. Now here's the thing, you have this category of ultra-processed food that because of the North Star I talked about before, because the industry, the marketplace has failed and gives them no incentive to make sure that we thrive, that keeps us from getting sick. They've just forgotten about that and put in place profits instead. The question is how do you get at ultra-processed food? What's the way to do it? How do you start holding the industry accountable? Now what RFK and the MAHA people started with was synthetic color additives. That wasn't what I would pick but, it wasn't a terrible choice. Because if you talk to Carlos Monteiro who coined the phrase ultra-processed food, and you ask him, what is an ultra-processed food, many people say it's this industrial creation. You can't find the ingredients in your kitchen. He agrees with all that, but he thinks the thing that really sets ultra-processed food, the harmful food, is the cosmetics that make them edible when they otherwise won't I've seen inside the plants where they make the old fashioned minimally processed food versus today's ultra-processed. In the minimally processed plants, I recognize the ingredients as food. In today's plants, you don't recognize anything. There are powders, there's sludges, there's nothing that you would really recognize as food going into it. And to make that edible, they use the cosmetics and colors as a key piece of that. But here's the problem. It doesn't matter if the color is synthetic or natural. And a fruit loop made with natural colors is just as bad for you as one made with synthetics. And indeed, it's been alarming that the agency has fast tracked these natural colors and as replacements because, cyanide is natural. We don't want to use that. And the whole approach has been off and it like how is this going to get us there? How is this focus on color additives going to get us there. And it won't. Yeah, I agree. I agree with your interpretation of that. But the thing with Kessler you got part of it right but the main thing he did is say you don't have to really define ultra-processed food, which is another industry ploy to delay action. Let's focus on the thing that's making us sick today. And that's the refined carbohydrates. The refined grains in food. That's what's most closely linked to the obesity, the diabetes we're seeing today. Now in the 1980s, the FDA granted, let's set aside sugar and white flour, for example, but they approved a whole slew of additives that the companies came forward with to see what we can add to the white flour and sugar to make it shelf stable, to meet all the taste, cost, and convenience considerations we have. And profit-making considerations we have. Back then, heart disease was the driving health problem. And so, it was easy to overlook why you didn't think that the these additives were really harmful. That then you could conclude whether Generally Recognized as Safe, which is what the agency did back then. What Kessler is saying is that what he's laid out in his petition is self-executing. It's not something that the agency grants that this is GRAS or not GRAS. They were just saying things that have historical safe use that scientists generally recognize it as safe. It's not something the agency decides. It's the universe of all of us scientists generally accept. And it's true in the '80s when we didn't face the obesity and diabetes epidemic, people didn't really focus on the refined carbohydrates. But if you look at today's food environment. And I hope you agree with this, that what is the leading driver in the food environment about what is it about ultra-processed food that's making us so sick? It's these refined grains and the way they're used in our food. And so, if the agency takes up the Kessler petition and starts acting on it, they don't have to change the designation. Maybe at some point they have to say some of these additives are no longer GRAS. But what Kessler's saying is by default, they're no longer GRAS because if you ask the scientists today, can we have this level of refined grains? And they'd say, no, that's just not Generally Recognized as Safe. So, he's pointing out that status, they no longer hold that status. And if the agency would recognize that publicly and the burden shifts where Wiley really always meant it to be, on the industry to prove that there are foods or things that we would thrive on, but that wouldn't make us sick. And so that's the key point that you go back to when you said, and you're exactly right that if you let the industry use their political power to just ignore health altogether and substitute profits, then you're right. Their sort of fiduciary responsibility is just to maximize profits and they can ignore health. If you say you can maximize profits, of course you're a capitalist business, but one of the tests you have to clear is you have to prove to us that people can thrive when they eat that. Thrive as the standard, might require some congressional amplification because it's not in the statute. But what is in the statute is the food can't make you sick. If scientists would generally recognize, would say, if you eat this diet as they intend, if you eat this snack food, there's these ready to heat meals as they intend, you're going to get diabetes and obesity. If scientists generally believe that, then you can't sell that. That's just against the law and the agency needs them to enforce the law. Bio:   Jerold Mande is CEO of Nourish Science; Adjunct Professor of Nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health; and a Non-Resident Senior Fellow, Tisch College of Civic Life, Tufts University. Professor Mande has a wealth of expertise and experience in national public health and food policy. He served in senior policymaking positions for three presidents at USDA, FDA, and OSHA helping lead landmark public health initiatives. In 2009, he was appointed by President Obama as USDA Deputy Under Secretary for Food Safety. In 2011, he moved to USDA's Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services, where he spent six years working to improve the health outcomes of the nation's $100 billion investment in 15 nutrition programs. During President Clinton's administration, Mr. Mande was Senior Advisor to the FDA commissioner where he helped shape national policy on nutrition, food safety, and tobacco. He also served on the White House staff as a health policy advisor and was Deputy Assistant Secretary for Occupational Health at the Department of Labor. During the George H.W. Bush administration he led the graphic design of the iconic Nutrition Facts label at FDA, for which he received the Presidential Design Award. Mr. Mande began his career as a legislative assistant for Al Gore in the U.S. House and Senate, managing Gore's health and environment agenda, and helping Gore write the nation's organ donation and transplantation laws.  Mande earned a Master of Public Health from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a Bachelor of Science in nutritional science from the University of Connecticut. Prior to his current academic appointments, he served on the faculty at the Tufts, Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, and Yale School of Medicine.

Professor Jerold Mande is CEO of Nourish Science; Adjunct Professor of Nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health; and a Non-Resident Senior Fellow, Tisch College of Civic Life, Tufts University.Mr. Mande has a wealth of expertise and experience in national public health and food policy. He served in senior policymaking positions for three presidents at USDA, FDA, and OSHA helping lead landmark public health initiatives. In 2009, he was appointed by President Obama as USDA Deputy Under Secretary for Food Safety, In 2011, he moved to USDA's Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services, where he spent six years working to improve the health outcomes of the nation's $100 billion investment in 15 nutrition programs. During President Clinton's administration, Mr. Mande was Senior Advisor to the FDA commissioner where he helped shape national policy on nutrition, food safety, and tobacco. He also served on the White House staff as a health policy advisor and was Deputy Assistant Secretary for Occupational Health at the Department of Labor. During the George H.W. Bush administration he led the graphic design of the iconic Nutrition Facts label at FDA, for which he received the Presidential Design Award.Mr. Mande began his career as a legislative assistant for Al Gore in the U.S. House and Senate, managing Gore's health and environment agenda, and helping Gore write the nation's organ donation and transplantation laws.Mr. Mande earned a Master's of Public Health from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a Bachelor of Science in nutritional science from the University of Connecticut. Prior to his current academic appointments, he served on the faculty at the Tufts, Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, and Yale School of Medicine.Links & Resources:Nourish ScienceStudy: US Diet Quality and the 86% F-grade findingDiet, Drugs and Dopamine by David KesslerThe Poison Squad by Deborah BlumThe Jungle by Upton SinclairCommissioner Kessler's citizen petition to FDA on refined carbohydratesNYT Article: what's wrong with how we test food chemicalsDiscounts Get 10% off delicious local farm-fresh food delivered to your door with my link for FarmMatch: https://farmmatch.com/jane Get 15% off high-quality Italian olive oil with code FARMTOFUTURE: https://shop.vignolifood.com/FARMTOFUTURE Get 40% the CircleDNA's Premium DNA test with code JANEZHANG: https://circledna.com/premium Connect with Jane Z. Instagram: @farm.to.future Email: jane@farmtofuture.co Website: farmtofuture.co

Most Americans would say civics is very important to our democracy. But how often do members of the public ask themselves "What should we do?" This dual-guest episode features Dr. Peter Levine of Tufts University and Dr. Harry Boyte of the Institute for Public Life and Work, who are two longtime friends and fellow experts in the fields of civic studies and public work respectively. Hear the ways we can come together to actively renew our civics for a more resilient democratic system of government.Learn more about Dr. Levine and the Tisch College at Tufts University: https://tischcollege.tufts.edu/Learn more about Dr. Boyte's Institute for Public Life and Work: https://www.iplw.org/Take a read of Dr. Boyte's new essay just published in the National Civic Review!https://www.nationalcivicleague.org/ncr-article/revitalizing-the-american-commonwealth/Support the showVisit georgewashingtoninstitute.org to sign up for our e-mail list! The site is the one-stop shop of all things Friends & Fellow Citizens and George Washington Institute!JOIN as a Patreon supporter and receive a FREE Friends & Fellow Citizens mug at the $25 membership level!IMPORTANT NOTE/DISCLAIMER: All views expressed by the host are presented in his personal capacity and do not officially represent the views of any affiliated organizations. All views presented by guests are solely those of the interviewees themselves and may or may not reflect the views of their affiliated organizations, the host, Friends & Fellow Citizens, and/or The George Washington Institute.

To mark the 20th anniversary of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), this year we are featuring a special series of interviews with experts, practitioners, academics and civil society and human rights defenders who will reflect on conceptual and operational development of R2P over the past two decades, as well as the impact of R2P and atrocity prevention on their work. In this episode, we sat down with Dr. Abiodun Williams, Professor of the Practice of International Politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, and the Tisch College of Civic Life at Tufts University. As the former Director of Strategic Planning for UN Secretaries-General Kofi Annan and Ban Ki-Moon, he explores Secretary-General Annan's pivotal role in the early development and implementation of R2P, emphasizing the influence of personal commitment on these efforts. Dr. Willams also highlights the contributions of non-Western states to the promotion of R2P and shares his perspective on the future of atrocity prevention in an increasingly complex geopolitical environment.

In this episode of The College Admissions Process Podcast, I had the pleasure of speaking with Dr. Jennifer Stephan, Dean of Academic Advising and Undergraduate Studies in the School of Engineering, Tufts University. With her extensive knowledge and personal experience as a parent of three Tufts graduates, Dr. Stephan provides valuable insights into the Tufts experience, the application process, and how prospective students can make the most of their college search. Whether you're a student, parent, or college counselor, this episode offers a wealth of tips to help you on your college journey.Key Highlights:1. Factors That Influenced Her Daughters' Decision to Choose Tufts

Jennifer McAndrew from Tufts University's Tisch College of Civic Life explores the critical issue of voter turnout among STEM students with Dr. Roberta Rincon, director of research and impact at SWE. McAndrew dives into findings from the recent "Democracy Counts 2022" report from the National Study of Learning, Voting, and Engagement, explores why collegians in STEM majors may be harder to mobilize than those in other fields and identifies strategies that can boost civic participation. Recorded on National Voter Registration Day, this conversation offers insights into increasing collegiate voting in the lead-up to the U.S. elections.

Abiodun Williams is Professor of the Practice of International Politics at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and The Tisch College of Civic Life at Tufts University.  He was Director of Strategic Planning to UN Secretaries-General Kofi Annan and Ban Ki-moon and is past Chair of the Academic Council on the United Nations System (ACUNS).  His latest book is “Kofi Annan and Global Leadership at the United Nations.” Annan was a proactive leader who launched monumental programs that improved the UN, such as the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), the UN Human Rights Council, the UN Global Compact and the Millennium Development Goals, which were the precursors to the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. Annan was also a transformational visionary who strengthened UN peacekeeping and involved academia, NGOs and the private sector in helping overcome many international problems. Annan was quite accurate in his critique of President Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq.

The S1 Project presents at the "Frontiers of Democracy" conference at the Tisch College of Civic Life at Tufts University. Here's a taste of the conversation we led.

An experienced television news producer and highly regarded political strategist and thought-leader, Simon has spent three decades in national media and politics. He is a veteran of two Presidential campaigns, including a senior role in the famous 1992 Clinton War Room. In his current capacity as President of NDN/New Policy Institute, Simon advises leading politicians, Administration officials and policy makers on a wide range of issues here in the United States and abroad. He is a frequent commentator in the national media, appearing regularly in major newspapers and websites, political journals and on cable and network television.  A few years ago GQ magazine named him one of the 50 most powerful people in Washington.  In this past election cycle, he was a senior advisor to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, helping craft the strategy which netted the Democrats 40 seats and earned the highest vote share by either party since 1986.  Simon is a graduate of Tufts University and currently serves on the board of the Tisch College of Civic Life at Tufts, where he recently taught a semester-long seminar to undergraduates on American politics. He is a Henry Crown Fellow at the Aspen Institute, a member of the U.S. State Department's Advisory Committee on International Information and Communications Policy and an advisory board member of the Open Source Elections Technology Institute. Outside of his work with NDN, Simon has advised private corporate and political clients, including Univision, Nanomix, Discourse Intelligence, and the DCCC. He and his wife, Caitlin Durkovich, and their three teenage children live in Washington, DC. 

Simon Rosenberg President, NDN and the New Policy Institute, a think tank based in Washington, DC Prominent American political strategist, thought-leader and commentator An experienced television news producer and highly regarded political strategist and thought-leader, Simon has spent three decades in national media and politics. He is a veteran of two Presidential campaigns, including a senior role in the famous 1992 Clinton War Room. In his current capacity as President of NDN/New Policy Institute, Simon advises leading politicians, Administration officials and policy makers on a wide range of issues here in the United States and abroad. He is a frequent commentator in the national media, appearing regularly in major newspapers and websites, political journals and on cable and network television.  A few years ago GQ magazine named him one of the 50 most powerful people in Washington.  In this past election cycle, he was a senior advisor to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, helping craft the strategy which netted the Democrats 40 seats and earned the highest vote share by either party since 1986.  Simon is a graduate of Tufts University and currently serves on the board of the Tisch College of Civic Life at Tufts, where he recently taught a semester-long seminar to undergraduates on American politics. He is a Henry Crown Fellow at the Aspen Institute, a member of the U.S. State Department's Advisory Committee on International Information and Communications Policy and an advisory board member of the Open Source Elections Technology Institute. Outside of his work with NDN, Simon has advised private corporate and political clients, including Univision, Nanomix, Discourse Intelligence, and the DCCC. He and his wife, Caitlin Durkovich, and their three teenage children live in Washington, DC. 

Vuslat Doğan Sabancı is a business leader, a philanthropist and a leading voice on human rights, gender equality and freedom of expression both in Turkey and globally. In her 22 years at Hürriyet Publishing, the leading newspaper in Turkey, Ms. Doğan Sabancı served as the CEO between 2004-2008 and as the Chair of the Board of Directors for the following ten years. She left her position in May 2018 when the Doğan family divested from all of their major media assets. Under Ms. Doğan Sabancı’s leadership, Hürriyet not only succeeded to be the largest and most influential newspaper in Turkey, but also became the country’s largest digital content company, reaching one of every two internet user in Turkey. While leading this digital transformation, she also spearheaded an editorial policy for promoting gender equality and minority rights and played a major role in the improvement of such rights in the public perception as well as in the legal system. The "No! To Domestic Violence" initiative, which she established in 2004 to advance the social empowerment of women, was the first example of her efforts to use media in order to create major positive social change. Through this initiative, which now continues under the umbrella of the Aydın Doğan Foundation, a major taboo was broken in Turkey through widespread educational programs geared at the general public, including everyone from imams to policemen. Launched as part of the initiative, Turkey's first ever 24/7 domestic violence hotline remains in operation today, and is also accessible to Turkish speaking communities around the world. In 2020, Ms. Doğan Sabancı established Vuslat Foundation (https://www.vuslatfoundation.org/en), Turkey’s first and only global philanthropic initiative. The foundation aims to put the skill of generous listening— hearing beyond words— to oneself, others and nature at the center of all our connections by 2030. In line with this mission, the foundation supports academic research regarding listening, creates awareness through work with artists and storytellers and develops generous listening practices for youth and civil society. The foundation was invited as a special project partner to the 17th Architecture Biennale which took place between May - November 2021, and presented a monumental installation 'The Listener' by globally acclaimed artist Giuseppe Penone. The artwork intended to draw attention to listening as a significant thread within the exhibition's theme, 'How Will We Live Together?' With the collaboration of Vuslat Foundation, a Generous Listening and Dialogue (GLAD) Center was launched at Tufts University. Housed at the Tisch College of Civic Life, the GLAD Center will collaborate with schools and departments across the entire university, building on the expertise of Tufts’ faculty, research centers and civic engagement programs. Its programming and interdisciplinary initiatives will help students, staff and faculty develop skills and awareness, address hard issues, and generate new knowledge. At the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a ‘Vuslat Foundation Fellowship for Generous Listening’ was launched at The Transmedia Storytelling Initiative in the School of Architecture and Planning. Vuslat Doğan Sabancı holds a BA degree in Economics from Bilkent University and completed her graduate studies in International Relations and Media at Columbia University, in New York. Currently, she is a Member of the Board of Directors of Doğan Group, Hepsi Emlak and Hepsiburada. She is the Vice President of Aydın Doğan Foundation which promotes girls education and women empowerment in Turkey. She serves as a member of the Columbia Global Centers Advisory Board and the Columbia University Global Leadership Council. She is a member of the Board of Leaders at the Leaders for Peace. She is a Founding Board Member of Endeavor Turkey, an NGO cultivating high-impact entrepreneurship, a founding member of Turkish Businesswomen Association (TIKAD) and an active member of the Ashoka Support Network in Turkey. She is also a Board Member of Global Relations Forum (GIF/GRF), and a member of the Global Philanthropy Circle Members of Synergos.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Dayna Cunningham, Dean of Tufts' Tisch College of Civic Life, and Edward Glaeser, Harvard professor of economics and co-author of the forthcoming book "Survival of the City: Living and Thriving in an Age of Isolation" explore key issues affecting the future of cities with columnist and former Boston Globe editorial page editor Renée Loth.

She joined Tisch College in 2017 as the Associate Dean for Programs and Administration, overseeing a portfolio of programs and curricula that support the entire Tufts University undergraduate and graduate student body as well as provide resources for faculty research and professional development. She has devoted her career to public service, serving in the U.S. Army and spending nine years as a faculty member and senior leader at the United States Military Academy in the Department of Behavioral Sciences and Leadership. While at West Point, her teaching and research were focused on leadership and civic engagement. During her last combat assignment with the 1st Cavalry Division in Baghdad, Iraq she founded a US-Iraqi partnership for military women and worked with several NGOs on peace and security initiatives. She retired after 29 years of Active Duty at the rank of Colonel. Join David Nour on this episode of the Curve Benders podcast with Col. (Ret.) Diane Ryan. BTW, three quick points: Diane Ryan will be our LIVE guest today at Noon ET on LinkedIn, YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter. Hope you'll join us and jump in with your questions. We turn these show notes into more in-depth blog posts and articles, so check them out on NourGroup.com We have some fabulous guests joining us in the coming weeks, including Dennis Sadlowski, former CEO of Siemens Energy and Automation, Thor Ernstsson, CEO of Stratta, Michael Watkins, IMD Professor and Author of the First 90 Days, and Subir Chowdhury, the foremost authority on Six Sigma. Hope you'll subscribe wherever you consume podcasts. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/david-nour/message

The government needs to be more tech-savvy and open with its data, which bolsters engagement in the civic process in return. But modernizing state government has been a challenge for Governor Gavin Newsom during his time in office; we take a closer look at California’s struggle to update its technology and how a more robust civic education can help solve some of the democratic challenges we face today. Today's Guests CapRadio State Government Reporter Scott Rodd with his reporting on California’s challenge in modernizing state government and being more tech-savvy  News Literacy Project President and COO and former teacher and superintendent Charles Salter discusses the value of civic education, what that looks like in K-12 and collegiate levels, and how to reach under-resourced communities Former ambassador to Spain and Andorra during the Obama Administration and Dean of the Tisch College of Civic Life at Tufts University Alan Solomont explains how civic knowledge and education has changed over the years, the Educating for Democracy Act, and civic education in foreign countries  Columbia University Center for Civic Education President and Constitutional Law and Government Lecturer Christopher Riano on diversity in civics and why it matters

In today's #WEIMPACT series we are celebrating an extraordinary individual. Super heroes do exist and Black Boy Joy is so alive today and I had the privilege and honor to speak to that very person. Let me introduce you to soul rider, visionary, artist, advocate Mr. Dylan Dawkins. Dylan spoke about a community that he is deeply connected to which is surfing. Personally, I enjoy watching surfers catch that wave, it is the most beautiful thing I have ever seen. However to see one of me out there hits the sweet spot. There is another side of surfing that shadows the community. To be more specific, systemic racism with in that community. Areas of discussion, representation, deep rooted cultural norms and accessibility. Although surfing doesn't completely define Dylan, this Stanford graduate and as he concludes his graduate studies at Tisch College at NYU, he focuses on building his career in digital art and also creating a black centric theme park. I can't wait to see his career take off! Wow, please do not miss this episode and welcome this King! Dylan's Deets: @dylandawk @dyandawk.art dylandawkins.com --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/365dayswithreese/support

CIRCLE (Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning) at Tisch College of Civic Life at Tufts University studies youth civic engagement, and the recent election has provide data for new studies performed by that group. Gathering information from vote tallies, U.S. Election Project’s total votes cast, and other sources has led to good metrics […] The post CIRCLE studies Gen-Z civic engagement appeared first on WORT 89.9 FM.

On this week's episode of "Getting to the Bottom of It," podcast host Alec Rich speaks with Executive Director of the Honey W. Nashman Center for Civic Engagement and Public Service and Chair of the GW Votes Taskforce Amy Cohen and Dr. Adam Gismondi, Director of Impact at the Institute for Democracy and Higher Education at Tufts University's Tisch College about student voter turnout.

This week, we’re bringing you an episode from Democracy Works, the podcast Jenna hosts when she’s not on Higher Ed Social. She talks with Nancy Thomas, director of the Institute for Democracy and Higher Education, an applied research center in the Tisch College of Civic Life at Tufts University. Nancy argues that higher education faculty, staff, and administrators can be political without being partisan when it comes to things like encouraging students to vote or thinking about how political issues will impact their day-to-day lives. She also offers some advice for how to keep voting in your messaging mix this fall despite everything else happening on campus and in the country.

Nancy Thomas is director of the Institute for Democracy and Higher Education, an applied research center at the Tisch College of Civic Life at Tufts University. Over the past decade, the IDHE has worked to understand how college students vote and make recommendations to university leaders about both short-term voting challenges and long-term obligations to creating democratic citizens. This conversations covers both of those areas, as well as what role faculty can play in fostering democracy and civic engagement in their courses.Additional InformationInstitute for Democracy and Higher EducationNational Voter Registration DayFaculty Network for Student Voting RightsCampus Election Engagement ProjectAll In Campus Democracy ChallengeRelated EpisodesThe promise and peril of early votingAre land-grant universities still democracy's colleges?Citizenship, patriotism, and democracy in the classroom

What if the way we engage in politics today works against the changes we seek? One-third of Americans say they spend at least two hours a day on politics. But according to Eitan Hersh, author of the book, Politics is for Power: How to Move beyond Political Hobbyism, Take Action, and Make Real Change, most of that time is spent consuming news, posting to social media, and signing online petitions. Eitan labels these kinds of isolated, predominantly online behaviors "political hobbyism," and he contrasts them with the kinds of activities that can drive real change. He explains that politics "...is about getting power for the things you care about, working with others, having goals, having strategies, and that's just not what's going on for most people who are cognitively engaged in politics." Eitan's book is a primer for anyone who wants to effect political change. In it, he shares inspiring stories of ordinary people working to change the world through everyday political participation.  He also shares steps he's taken to overcome his own political hobbyism and the empathy he has for others like him. He says, "They start thinking of all the excuses in their head for why they shouldn't do things differently: 'I don't have time.' 'I'm not very ideological.' Or whatever their excuses are. Hey, I know those excuses -- those are mine! Here's how I kind of got past them." Eitan Hersh is an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science and at the Tisch College of Civic Life at Tufts University. He researches and teaches on the topics of civic participation, U.S. elections, and voting rights. The Host You can learn more about Curious Minds' Host and Creator, Gayle Allen, and Producer and Editor, Rob Mancabelli, here. Episode Links @eitanhersh Political Hobbyism: A Theory of Mass Behavior by Eitan D. Hersh We All Really Need to Do Hard Things - the story of Lisa Mann - by Eitan Hersh Changing the Conversation Together (CTC) a deep canvassing organization 7 Questions with Dave Fleischer on Deep Canvassing Lilliana Mason You're More Powerful Than You Think by Eric Liu Angela Aldous story as discussed in Power, Friendship, and Some Democratic Rules by Russell Arben Fox Bowling Alone by Robert Putnam Linked fate Support the Podcast Rate and review the podcast on iTunes or wherever you subscribe. Tell a friend or family member about the show. Subscribe so you never miss an episode. Where to Find Curious Minds Spotify iTunes Tunein Stitcher Google Play Overcast

Join us as we chat with Madeleine about her experience taking a gap year before college. She shares how taking the path less traveled helped her to be a better student and to discover who she really was as a person. "Gut feelings are guardian angels".  MCEC Parent to Parent webinar recording: 1120 - Taking a Gap Year before College http://militarychild.adobeconnect.com/webrec1120/event/registration.html   https://exchanges.state.gov/us/program/nsliy   Find Programs National Security Language Initiative for Youth (NSLI-Y) provides merit-based scholarships to U.S. high school students interested in learning less-commonly studied foreign languages overseas. exchanges.state.gov     Madeleine is a member of Tufts University’s Class of 2020. She is double-majoring in Community Health and Anthropology and minoring in Food Systems & Nutrition. At the intersection of her academic path of study lies curiosities about and passions for food justice, food security, the health and wellness of marginalized communities, and social justice. She grew up in a military family and is committed to working in a field of public service after graduation. Before college, Madeleine took a gap year and studied Arabic in Marrakech, Morocco, through a Department of State scholarship called the National Security Language Initiative for Youth (NSLI-Y).  Beyond academics, Madeleine a varsity athlete and team captain for the Tufts Women’s Rowing team. She also is involved in the Tufts Food Rescue Collaborative, a volunteer organization dedicated to the mitigation of wasted food and food insecurity on our campus and in the community, and SYNS, a student-led experimental, intellectual, and research-focused think tank program supported by the Tisch College of Civic Life. 

Now a candidate for the Republican nomination for president, the former Massachusetts governor visited Tufts recently as a participant in a Presidential Town Hall hosted by the Tisch College of Civic Life. In this episode, he talks about his stance on immigration and impeachment and his plan to win the nomination.

From 2013 to 2019, Beto O’Rourke represented the 16th Congressionaldistrict of Texas in the U.S. House of Representatives. In March 2017, he launched a historic campaign to represent Texas in the U.S. Senate. Running the largest grassroots campaign the state had ever seen, O’Rourke ultimately received more votes than any democrat in Texas history. Now a candidate for the Democratic nomination for president, O’Rourke visited Tufts recently, as a participant in a Presidential Town Hall hosted by the Tisch College of Civic Life.

Today the Creative + Cultural Podcast connects with Grace Talusan in collaboration with UCI and the Illuminations initiative. Grace Talusan was born in the Philippines and raised in New England. A graduate of Tufts University and the MFA Program in Writing at UC Irvine, she is the recipient of a U.S. Fulbright Fellowship to the Philippines and an Artist Fellowship Award from the Massachusetts Cultural Council. Talusan teaches the Essay Incubator at GrubStreet and at the Jonathan M. Tisch College of Civic Life at Tufts. She is the Fannie Hurst Writer-in-Residence at Brandeis University. The Body Papers, winner of the Restless Books Prize for New Immigrant Writing, is her first book.     Creative + Cultural is an interdisciplinary podcast dedicated to creative collaboration and cultural innovation. Each series is designed to provide community leaders a platform to share stories about business, history, technology, and the arts. Building on UCI’s demonstrated excellence in the creative arts and cultural programming, Illuminations aims to ensure that all of our students, regardless of major, have serious and meaningful exposure to the creative arts. In addition, we seek to strengthen the connections between UCI and our regional arts and culture centers and institutions. Producer: Heritage Future and UCI Illuminations Host: Trevor Allred Guest: Grace Talusan Music composed and performed by Dan Reckard

Congressman Joaquín Castro, a Texas democrat representing the 20th Congressional District, talks about civic life, the importance of the youth vote, the role of the United States in foreign affairs—and the best way to reach your elected officials. Castro also serves on the House Intelligence and Foreign Affairs Committees, and is First Vice Chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. He came to Tufts as a guest of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and the Tisch College of Civic Life.

What type posts generated the most engagement? What do members identify as positive and negative aspects of belonging to digital communities? What does "community" look like in an online space?  On this episode of Higher Ed Live, Tony Doody interviews Paul William Eaton (Assistant Professor of Educational Leadership at Sam Houston State University), Josie Ahlquist (Research associate at Florida State University Center for Leadership and Learning Research Center), Adam Gismondi (Institute for Democracy & Higher Education at Tufts University's Tisch College of Civic Life) , and Laura Pasquini (Lecturer with the Department of Learning Technologies in the College of Information at the University of North Texas in Denton, TX) about their latest research on Student Affairs Professionals Digital Communities.

What happened to Providence's Chinatown? In this week's episode we talk to Angela Yuanyuan Feng and Julieanne Fontana, two Master's Students in Public Humanities at Brown University who have created an exhibit and walking tour in downtown Providence to consider this question. Angela and Julieanne discuss their work with community partners, scholars, and archivists to recover this history, and they talk about the various circumstances that led to the creation of Providence's Chinatown and its decline. Then we're joined by Diane O'Donoghue, Director of the Program for Public Humanities at the Jonathan M. Tisch College of Civic Life at Tufts University, to learn more about how Diane's work on Boston's Chinatown and its public library influenced the project on Providence's Chinatown. Public Work is produced and hosted by Amelia Golcheski and Jim McGrath. Questions? Comments? Find us on Twitter (PublicWorkPod) or email us: publicworkpodcast[at]gmail. The music on this episode is excerpted from the song “New Day” by Lee Rosevere (licensed via Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International).

What are the principles of democratic practice in the classroom environment that lead to deeper student-centered learning? Kei Kawashima-Ginsberg (@CIRCLE_KKG), one of the United State's leading experts in civics education, helps us answer this question and others. Professor Kawashima-Ginsberg is the Director of CIRCLE, the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, part of Tisch College of Civic Life at Tufts University. CIRCLE is a nonpartisan research organization producing and translating knowledge about how young people acquire civic skills and identities through a variety of experiences, and what makes certain learning experiences more effective than others. Drawing on her background in positive youth development and community psychology, her core scholastic interests are in understanding how young people interact with the cultural, educational, and institutional factors and shape their civic and political developmental trajectories over time. While Kei is interested in ensuring that any educational solutions target all young people, she is especially interested in diminishing learning opportunities gaps, including civic opportunities gaps. She comes on the SCL Podcast to help us understand how teachers can cultivate the habits and mindsets our students need to be civic minded and active agents in their learning and in their communities. Also, shout out to Generation Citizen (@gencitizen https://generationcitizen.org) for their great work in this field.

CID Student Ambassador Hubert Wu interviews Steven Koltai, Managing Director of Koltai & Company, and Brookings Guest Scholar on Governance Studies. In his recently launched book "Peace through Entrepreneurship: Investing in a Start-up Culture for Security and Development" Steven makes the case for government investment in entrepreneurship as a way to foster job creation and tackle security and development issues. Interview recorded on March 3rd, 2017. About the speaker: Steven Koltai is an expert on international entrepreneurship ecosystem development. He is currently Managing Director of Koltai & Company, an entrepreneurship program development consultancy. Most recently, he was Senior Advisor for Entrepreneurship at the US Department of State where he created and managed the Global Entrepreneurship Program (GEP), focused primarily in job creation via entrepreneurship in Muslim majority countries. Previously, Steven has 30 years of business experience as an investment banker (Salomon Brothers), management consultant (McKinsey & Company), media industry (Warner Bros and Lifetime Television), and as a multiple company successful entrepreneur and angel investor. He is a long time member of the Council on Foreign Relations where he was an International Affairs Fellow. Koltai serves on numerous for profit and not-for-profit Boards, including the Tisch College of Active Citizenship at Tufts University (his alma mater), Babson Global at Babson College, the Library of Congress’ David Rubenstein Literacy Awards Committee, the Museum of Hungarian-speaking Jewry in Safed, Israel, and Advancing Girls Education (AGE) Africa in Malawi.

Many Americans in the millennial generation can understandably say they've never known a political climate that was not polarized to the point of gridlock. By the next presidential election, Americans under age 35 will be the largest generation of eligible voters in the nation. But surveys show millennials would rather be active in their communities than in politics. On this episode of Indivisible, MPR News host Kerri Miller looks at our divided nation through the eyes of millennials and asks if this could be the generation to bring about a solution. Kerri is joined by Kei Kawashima-Ginsberg, director of Tisch College’s Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement at Tuft’s University and Derrick Feldmann, president of marketing firm Achieve Agency. Here are some tweets from this episode: Indivisible Week 7: Millennials And A Polarized America

This Friedman Seminar features Miriam Nelson, associate dean, Tisch College of Citizenship and Public Service and Friedman School professor, and Tim Griffin, director of Friedman's Agriculture Food and Environment Program, speaking on the topic of dietary guidelines and sustainability. This seminar was held on October 14th, 2015. The 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee report that was submitted last February has received unprecedented public attention. The majority of the attention -- coming from the private sector, politicians, advocates, academics, and the public at large, has been focused on the inclusion of sustainability into the report. Professor Nelson was a member of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee and Professor Griffin was a consultant to the committee. Professors Nelson and Griffin will discuss the rationale for including sustainability in the report, as well as the scientific process and report conclusions. About the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy: The Gerald J. and Dorothy R. Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University is the only independent school of nutrition in the United States. The school's eight degree programs – which focus on questions relating to nutrition and chronic diseases, molecular nutrition, agriculture and sustainability, food security, humanitarian assistance, public health nutrition, and food policy and economics – are renowned for the application of scientific research to national and international policy.