A city’s sewers say a lot about its residents. Sick people often shed pathogens in their waste, adding traceable amounts of bacteria and viruses into wastewater. Testing that wastewater offers a simple, low-cost way to monitor the spread of disease — a practice that began with polio in the 1940s and became more widespread during the COVID-19 pandemic. Today, tests for a variety of common and emerging viruses.

American public health agencies don’t routinely test wastewater for sexually transmitted infections, but new research led by the �������� and the Washington State Department of Health found that such methods could be used to effectively identify Chlamydia trachomatis, the bacteria that causes chlamydia.

The study, , could help public health agencies better identify and respond to increased spread of chlamydia and other STIs, which are The researchers specifically explored wastewater’s potential as a community monitoring tool, and not as a way to identify cases or trace pathogens back to individual people or locations.

“STIs are known for being underreported because of a lot of factors, especially stigma and the prevalence of asymptomatic cases,” said co-lead author , assistant professor of environmental and occupational health sciences and of civil and environmental engineering at the UW. “Wastewater is cool because it’s population level. You don’t need people to go to the doctor and seek out treatment to know that there are people in a community shedding specific pathogens.”

Working in collaboration with local health jurisdictions, researchers collected frequent samples from influent wastewater at five wastewater treatment plants across Washington state and six neighborhood-level sewer sites near Seattle. Collection sites ranged from a large, high-population urban area to a rural treatment plant serving fewer than 5,000 people. Researchers masked the specific names and locations of sample locations to protect the privacy of people and communities.

Researchers tested wastewater samples for the pathogens that cause three common STIs: chlamydia, syphilis and gonorrhea. C. trachomatis was the most prevalent pathogen across all test sites. The bacteria that cause gonorrhea and syphilis were found far less frequently, despite data showing confirmed cases of those diseases in the associated areas.��

Further research could reveal why tests captured C. trachomatis more consistently than other STI-causing bacteria and explore the study’s limitations, which included people moving between sewer sites and the influence of demographics.

The researchers are also eager to investigate several trends they observed in the data, such as spikes in pathogen concentration occurring near the winter holidays and after Valentine’s Day.

Among the neighborhood collection sites was a small, densely populated area adjacent to a college campus. More than 87% of residents were young people between 18 and 34 years old, a population considered high-risk for STIs. Clinical health records showed very low case counts of chlamydia, but researchers consistently detected C. trachomatis in wastewater samples.��

That gap could indicate underreporting driven by stigma or asymptomatic cases. It also gives public health officials an opportunity to react to a previously unknown increase in infection activity.

“From a public health perspective, data like this allows us to elevate awareness that this pathogen is here and spreading in the community, even if cases aren’t presenting to clinics or providers are not identifying the infections in their patients,” said co-lead author , program manager of the Washington State Department of Health’s wastewater surveillance program. “A small amount of wastewater can tell you so much about the community while simultaneously filling gaps in the traditional methods we monitor disease activity.”��

A full list of co-authors is available with the paper.��

This research was funded in part by the Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity Infectious Diseases Cooperative Agreement from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.��

For more information, contact Fuhrmeister at efuhrm@uw.edu.

Source

Nobody is immune from the hazards of summer wildfires, even the experts. At the ��������, researchers study both how to mitigate and understand wildfire behavior and how air quality degrades as a result of burning blazes. While UW faculty contribute to a rapidly emerging body of research into the risks of fire and smoke season, they also contend with the decisions that the rest of us face: how to protect themselves and their families, where to find reliable information, and how to manage the anxieties of summer smoke.��

Who better to learn from? As fires rage and smoke smothers the Pacific Northwest — including historic and devastating — UW News sat down with five UW experts in fire science, forestry, air pollution and more to ask how they manage wildfire season.��

This summer, the U.S. has been inundated with wildfire smoke, sometimes from fires burning hundreds of miles away. What sources do you use to track wildfires and air quality?

, research associate professor of environmental and forest sciences: The most reliable source, in my opinion, is the Fire and Smoke Map from . This map consolidates data from various government sources related to wildfires, prescribed burns, smoke emissions and up-to-date models. It serves as a comprehensive resource for smoke emissions information.

, research scientist in environmental and forest sciences: For smoke forecasts, I often turn to AirNow, but the is an excellent friend when we have been inundated with smoke for days and I’m looking for extended forecasts and analyses. is also an incredibly helpful site. I’m careful to check if the readings are U.S. EPA PM2.5 with the conversion applied — otherwise the readings generally are higher than reality.

, professor of environmental and forest sciences: For personal use and immediate up-to-date information, I really like . As a free app that has lots of options and configurations, it can be really helpful for getting immediate information on any ongoing fire incident and incorporates information from multiple sources. Second, for more detailed maps, photos, and daily incident updates, I frequently check , which is the U.S. government interagency website that provides real-time public information and updates on fire incidents. As a forest fire scientist, I also use these sources for archived information about past fires that can better help us in our research.

Let’s say you’re planning a weekend trip, or a hike you’ve been looking forward to. How do you predict and plan around fire and smoke?��

E. Alvarado: I’ll plan my outdoor activities while considering potential smoke impacts. I’ll choose an area that’s unlikely to be affected by smoke for the duration of the activity. During the fire season, I’ll avoid areas with thermal inversions, which can trap smoke at night. For example, canyons or valleys surrounded by mountains are risky.

To predict future smoke concentrations, the National Weather Service is the most reliable source of information. Their weather predictions can indicate fire weather for the duration of the forecast. This is also important for hiking the rest of the year to stay informed about the weather for any outdoor activity.

BH: has nice maps of the U.S. and Canada with high-resolution smoke forecasts over the coming day or two. These maps can be really helpful for planning ahead, though are always subject to change based on changing fire behavior or weather conditions. With our lab group doing field work outdoors all summer long every summer, these are critical tools for us to be able to do our work.��

Do you have an AQI threshold where you’re no longer comfortable being outside? Does that vary depending on what you’re doing outside? If so, how?

, professor of environmental and occupational health sciences: The AQI is designed for communicating health risk to both general populations as well as populations that may be more susceptible to smoke.�� Rather than focusing on the AQI number, I instead focus on the public health messaging (the “Description of Air Quality” column in this figure):

, associate professor of environmental and occupational health sciences: I generally become more concerned when air quality has remained consistently elevated for about 24 hours, because I think about smoke exposure cumulatively over the course of the day.

SP: If it looks like air quality is going to degrade over an AQI of 80, I start thinking about my health and what level of activity I’m going to do. As the science on smoke and human health only becomes more cautionary, I save strenuous exercise like running or climbing mountains for times when the AQI is below 80.��

If you have to be outside during smoky days, how do you protect yourself?��

E. Alvarado: Starting from AQI in the yellow zone, I may wear a . However, above the orange zone, an N95 mask is mandatory.

ES: If working outdoors during smoky days, you and your employer should be aware that in Washington State, Labor and Industries has established from hazardous smoke exposures. Also be aware that oftentimes smoke and heat co-occur, and there are for working outdoors too.

E. Austin: I always make contingency plans while hiking and camping. In that case, I identify egress routes prior to departing in case a wildfire event limits my ability to return using the route I had planned. I also sign up for emergency text alerts for the county where I am spending time, and check the current fire activity and nearby evacuation status.��

How do you keep your indoor spaces safe during smoke waves?

ES: Thinking ahead and preparing your indoor space for regularly occurring wildfire smoke episodes is just as important as planning for other emergency events.�� Can you close doors and windows tightly and have good weather sealing to avoid smoke from infiltrating indoors? Can you set your ventilation system to recirculate air?�� Have you replaced your ventilation system (e.g., furnace) filter recently? Have you considered getting a portable HEPA-rated air cleaner that is sized appropriately for your bedroom or living area?�� Have you considered building a DIY box-fan filter?

E. Austin: I create a smoke-ready space in my home. This is a separate area, where I set my ventilation system to recirculate indoor air rather than bringing in outdoor air. I also run a HEPA filter, rated to perform well for the square footage of my space, during wildfire events. Lastly, I try to reduce air exchange between the indoor space and outdoors by closing all windows, only opening outdoor doors when necessary, and weatherizing the space around doors and windows prior to the event.

SP: For indoor air, we make sure our HEPA air filters are clean at the end of each fire season so that they are ready to go the following year. When there’s smoke in the air, we make sure windows and doors are closed and use our air filters. We also just got a heat pump so that we can keep windows closed when smoke is a factor at night.

If you find yourself in close proximity to an active wildfire, what steps do you suggest taking?

BH: I suggest being as conservative and cautious as possible. Conditions can change rapidly, and being in the direct line of where a fire is spreading can be extremely dangerous and life-threatening. So first, I would make sure that there is a clear and safe route to safety via a road, trail, path, etc. Second, assessing the situation through any official information or local authorities is critical. If the fire has not been reported, calling 911 immediately is important to alert responders and others. If an evacuation order is issued, leaving immediately is critical to get to safety ASAP.

E. Austin: Many local districts allow you to register your phone and/or email to receive real-time alerts. I also suggest identifying your evacuation route, any obstacles or bottlenecks that would slow down your evacuation and to preplan and even pack critical items that you would need to take with you in an emergency.

SP: I live in the Methow Valley, and we’ve been evacuated around five times in the last 20 years. As a fire ecologist who studies fire behavior and smoke, one of the most upsetting things for me has been to watch neighbors and friends stay to protect their places. We quickly pack a few valuable things — photo albums, laptops, wallets, and passports — and leave. My main message to friends over the years is that it’s not worth the risk — if flames are close that means that smoke and super-heated air may be close, too, and deadly.

How do you manage the stress and anxiety of fire season both here and elsewhere?

E. Austin: I manage that stress by preparing my home before fire season, relying on a small number of curated information sources rather than trying to identify reliable sources in the moment or checking multiple apps, and I try to make flexible backup plans for outdoor activities. I also suggest planning ahead to learn how to obtain and effectively use an N95 respirator to reduce exposures either at work or when outdoors for recreational activities.

SP: Fire and smoke season are stressful. I’ve dealt with some stress and anxiety not only from fast-moving wildfires but also from long-duration smoke events that feel like they will never clear. We have a strong community that is very supportive and understands how fire season can bring up some PTSD-type symptoms. We take care of our place and make sure that we have as low of risk in and around our home as possible. We also remind ourselves how very lucky we are to be able to have flexibility in our work schedules and plenty of friends and family elsewhere to be able to leave when wildfires hit close to home.

BH: Fire is an integral part of life on earth, and in regions like the Pacific Northwest, fire is a key process that will continue to shape this region well into the future. Knowing that it is not if, but when, fire will return to any given area helps me embrace the reality of fire season. Like anything in life, being informed and prepared is a great way to lower stress and anxiety that comes with uncertainty.��

The UW has dozens of experts in wildfires, smoke and related topics. To reach an expert, contact Alden Woods at acwoods@uw.edu.

Source

Over the past five years, the national conversation around health and nutrition has become ’ Most prominently, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s blames these foods for a host of chronic health issues and has to remove some UPFs from the food supply.��

But there’s a glaring problem: Nobody can agree on how, exactly, to define ultra-processed foods. The lack of a clear definition has stymied legislative and regulatory efforts to curb UPF consumption, and caused confusion for people evaluating their own diets.��

This spring, a panel of 14 nutrition, food science, policy and legal experts gathered to create a more practical and operational definition. The panel’s final report, , suggests an ingredient-based approach to identify ultra-processed foods, while also recommending a series of policies to reduce people’s exposure to them.��

The panel was co-chaired by , clinical professor emeritus of health systems and population health at the UW and executive director of the nonprofit group . UW News sat down with Krieger to discuss the new definition, the debate around ultra-processed foods and how people can limit their consumption.

How have we traditionally defined ultra-processed foods, and where does that definition fall short?��

Jim Krieger: The ultra-processed food concept was developed by who’s a physician and epidemiologist at the University of Sao Paolo in Brazil. He was trying to understand an increase in obesity and chronic disease rates, particularly in kids and young adults, and noticed some important changes in the diet that weren’t fully explained by just the usual nutrient profiling — like fat, sugar, salt. Monteiro came up with this concept of ultra-processed foods. The categorization system is called , which means ‘new’ in Portuguese, and classifies foods across a spectrum beginning with unprocessed ingredients and ending in ultra-processed. Ultra-processed foods are the ones that are the most highly processed industrial products, basically.��

The Nova definition is geared toward research, to really examine the effects of ultra-processed foods on a range of health outcomes. Using it, numerous studies have found ultra-processed foods to be associated with a whole host of health problems, like diabetes and heart disease and depression. That’s the basis to say, well, there’s probably sufficient evidence to figure out what we can do to reduce exposure to ultra-processed foods by reducing sales and consumption. That requires policy, and to have policy you need to have a definition of ultra-processed food that’s suitable for regulation or legislation, and that’s where the rub comes. The definition for research doesn’t really work in a policy context, because the Nova research definition uses multiple factors, including ingredients, processing techniques, and other factors to identify products as ultraprocessed. Applying Nova can require individual-level review of ambiguous products by skilled nutrition experts that may not be feasible in policy contexts.

You co-chaired a panel of 14 experts who came up with a new definition. What did that work look like, and what’s your new definition?

One criticism of the movement against UPFs has been that some foods that are technically ultra-processed are actually quite nutritious. I’m thinking of products like yogurts, whole-grain breads and tofu. How does your definition account for that?

JK: You want your definition to be sensitive enough to pick up most UPFs, but also specific — that is, not capture foods that are not truly UPFs or even those that can be part of a healthy diet. The way we addressed that was the FDA, a couple years ago, developed criteria for what they call a . If a company wants to say its products are healthy and put that on the package, it has to meet .��

We decided that even if a product is ultra-processed, if it meets the FDA’s criteria for a ‘Healthy’ food, then it should be exempted from policy. That cuts out edge cases — healthier foods that are also UPFs.

Your final report also dives into policy and makes recommendations for lawmakers to consider. What is the current status of ultra-processed food policy across the U.S.?��

JK: Over the last couple of years there has been a flurry of activity, particularly at the state legislative level. Some states say they’re getting rid of ultra-processed foods in school meals, for example, but they have a somewhat random list of ingredients or additives they don’t like.��

A few states have tried to take a more evidence-based approach. The best example of that is California, where they passed . They used the same kind of ingredient-list approach that we recommend, simplified a little bit. However, for a food to be a UPF under California’s definition, it must also be high in fat, sugar or salt, which raises a problem — about 35% of all ultra-processed foods do not have those levels. Proposed legislation in states like Pennsylvania have avoided this problem by sticking with the Nova-based definition, as recommended by our expert panel, rather than adding on fat, sugar and salt criteria.����

There’s also been a huge amount of movement in a couple of countries, especially in Latin America. Furthest along is , where the government just issued a regulation to require ultra-processed food labels on packages. They’re basically using the Nova definition as well.

There are policies moving now, which is why we felt it was important to say, use a good definition of ultra-processed for what you’re doing, and then think about certain policy ideas as the best bets for doing something about the problem. For us, those ideas include requiring labels on packages identifying a product as ultra-processed and removing UPFs from food served in schools, childcare and in government facilities.��

Many of the factors that lead people to choose ultra-processed foods are systemic. As an example, food deserts leave some people without easy access to affordable fresh foods. How did the panel consider those factors in making your policy recommendations?

JK: Increasing access to healthy foods gets into another set of policies that are well-described and, to varying extents, are being put into place. Our panel focused specifically on UPF policies. We did assess whether any of our policy recommendations would have unintended consequences of making food less available or affordable for people with low incomes and then we figured out strategies for mitigating those effects.��

A great example would be if you tax even a subset of ultra-processed foods, that’s going to make them less affordable, and that’s a challenge. We recommend that the tax revenues raised from these policies go toward vouchers or incentives for people with lower incomes that they can cash in for fruits and vegetables at a more affordable price.��

We also rejected some policy ideas. One was restricting the use of SNAP (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as food stamps) benefits for purchasing ultra-processed foods. We felt that would have too much of a negative impact on food affordability for people using SNAP, so we did not recommend that.��

What comes next for this research?��

JK: Our next step is to share this definition with as many policymakers as we can, and then offer them technical support if they want to figure out how to use this in legislation or regulation. The second thing is if any legislators, policymakers or advocates want to pursue policies, we’re available to provide technical support and assistance.��

There’s also a bunch of additional research that would be useful. We have some of those recommendations at the end of the report, but as an example, there’s controversy right now over different subgroups of UPFs and whether some are more harmful than others. The research that’s been done so far has been somewhat confusing and flawed. There’s also research on how, exactly, ultra-processed foods cause all these problems. There are a lot of great, interesting hypotheses, but I wouldn’t say any of them are definitive.��

As an expert in this field, how do you approach ultra-processed foods in your own life, and how would you recommend people think about reducing their own consumption?��

JK: Right now, about 60% of the calories that Americans consume are ultra-processed foods. Starting there, small and incremental steps are great. You can’t totally change your diet overnight, so the bottom-line message is to think about small things you can do.��

The first challenge is identifying UPFs, which is where we started this conversation. If there are ingredients in food that you don’t have in your kitchen, it’s likely going to be a UPF, and if it’s a long ingredient list that looks like a chemistry lab, it’s probably a UPF. Then you can consider what the food looks like. If it’s super bright, like Froot Loops or Doritos, that probably means it’s a UPF.��

But then once you’ve identified ultra-processed foods, what do you do? Let’s think about one thing you want to do. Say you drink a lot of sweetened beverages. You can think of what you can swap in that works for you, like sparkling water that doesn’t have a lot of additives, or coffee or tea.

As for me, I don’t eat many ultra-processed foods. When I started doing this work, when my kids were younger, I fed them all sorts of UPFs. I certainly wouldn’t do that now and wish I had known better. But if I want to have something that’s ultra-processed, that’s fine, it’s not going to kill you to have just a little bit. As long as your , then that’s great.��

The panel was co-chaired by Krieger and Lindsey Smith Taillie of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and convened by Mary Story and Megan Elsener Lott of Duke University. A full list of panel members is included in the panel’s This work was funded by Healthy Eating Research and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.��

For more information or to contact Krieger, email Alden Woods at acwoods@uw.edu.��

Source

Micropantries — commonly called “little free pantries”�� — and community fridges are a frequent sight throughout Seattle and the greater Puget Sound region. One estimate suggests that they supply around 4 million pounds of food per year to neighbors in need in the Seattle area, more than the state’s largest food bank. The curbside cupboards are a decentralized, community-driven effort to fight food insecurity and reduce food waste at the neighborhood level, but their ad hoc nature limits their dependability — users don’t know when food is available without repeatedly checking, and donors don’t know what foods are needed most.

Now, anyone who interacts with micropantries or community fridges in the Seattle area can try out an experimental app, made by �������� researchers, that brings a suite of new features to the micropantry network. , maps many local pantries across the region. The app also gives each pantry an activity feed where users can share food they’ve donated, report on stock levels, add requests to a wish list, post photos and leave other notes. The research team also retrofitted some pantries with sensors that anonymously auto-report their usage and stock levels to the app in real time.

“This is an effort to document and quantify the phenomenon of micropantries,” said , a senior research scientist at the UW . “Lots of micropantries and community fridges popped up around the time of the COVID-19 pandemic, and I was curious about who uses them and how they are used.”

The team was cognizant of privacy concerns and designed the smart pantry tech accordingly.

“Putting cameras in the pantries could give us a lot of information about what specific foods are moving through the system, but that may also deter users who are concerned about privacy,” said , a UW doctoral student in the Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science & Engineering who designed and built the sensor suite. “Instead, we settled on simpler sensors that measure weight and interactions like opening the door to measure stock levels while preserving everyone’s anonymity.”

The researchers hope that neighbors will find new ways to connect and help one another through these tools. A user might see that stock levels are low in a nearby pantry, for example, and decide to add some food. Another user might request certain foods to accommodate their dietary restrictions.��

The sensor-equipped pantries are a small subset of the dozens of pantries throughout Seattle, but in addition to providing some neighborhoods with enhanced food tracking, they will generate aggregate data that will help Dalla Chiara’s team study donor and usage behavior. Dalla Chiara also plans to survey donors to learn more about what motivates people to provide food to pantries.

“We know that there is a lot of food insecurity in Seattle and in the United States in general,” Dalla Chiara said. “But we know that there is also a lot of food waste — lots of people have a surplus of food. And we want to see how grassroots efforts like micropantries can address both food insecurity and waste at the same time.”

Dalla Chiara and his team recently completed a refit on a cold, sleeting March day at a pantry owned by Saint Paul’s Episcopal Church near Seattle Center. The church keeps the pantry regularly stocked, and rector Stephen Crippen is curious about the data the new system will produce.

“It puts numbers on what we’re actually accomplishing,” Crippen said. “It helps us get in touch with what’s going on on this street.”

The research team is also working with local businesses and nonprofits to encourage and track food distribution throughout the pantry network. In April, Seattle-based recycling startup ran a nonperishable food drive across Seattle and delivered 25,000 pounds of food to the ; from there, volunteers from the Cascade Bicycle Club’s distributed the food to micropantries around the city by bike, giving the network an infusion of both food and usage data. The and the nonprofit helped support the project’s community fridges effort.

Dalla Chiara recognizes that there are other grassroots online, and he doesn’t want his app to replace those services. Nor does he expect the smart pantry network to remain in service indefinitely — it costs about $150 to retrofit each pantry with sensors, and all that tech will be difficult to maintain after the study concludes in October of this year. At its core, the project is an effort to learn about micropantry usage and explore how technology might encourage sharing of resources and mutual aid systems.

“We’re trying to measure and quantify goodwill,” Dalla Chiara said. “Behind each little free pantry there is a whole system of behaviors — people trying to help one another. If we can understand that system better, we can support it better.”

Other UW collaborators include , professor of civil and environmental engineering and director of the Urban Freight Lab; , assistant teaching professor of environmental and occupational health sciences; , assistant professor of food systems, nutrition and health; and , assistant professor in the Allen School.

For more information, contact Dalla Chiara at giacomod@uw.edu.

Source

Biodiversity loss is directly threatening human health and welfare, according to new research by a multi-institution team including the ��������. The study, , reveals for the first time how the decline of insect pollinators undermines essential ecosystem services that support human nutrition and livelihoods.

It’s been long known that insect pollinators are vital for producing many of the fruits, vegetables and legumes that supply essential vitamins and minerals in our diets, yet clear evidence of how their decline affects people has been limited.

Working in 10 smallholder farming villages and their surrounding landscapes in Nepal, researchers traced the full chain of connections between wild pollinators, crop yields and the nutrients families rely on. By tracking diets, crop nutrients and the insects visiting those crops over a year, the research team showed how pollinators directly support both nutrition and livelihoods.

“This study directly connects the crops that local pollinators visit with people’s diets, nutrition and income,” said , a research scientist in the Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences at the UW. “It was a real collaborative effort across many partners to collect and analyze a large body of data, making it possible to explore these links.”

The study found insect pollinators were responsible for 44% of people’s farming income and contributed more than 20% of their intake of vitamin A, folate and vitamin E. When pollinators decline, families risk poorer nutrition leading to higher vulnerability to illness and infections, and deeper cycles of poverty and poor health. One quarter of the global population currently suffer from this “hidden hunger.”

The research shows there is real potential for positive change — nutrition and income can improve when communities support pollinators. Simple steps like planting wildflowers, using fewer pesticides or keeping native bees can help boost pollinator numbers, strengthening both nature and people’s wellbeing.

Even though smallholder farmers are highly vulnerable to biodiversity loss, these practical local actions could enhance their food security and economic resilience. The findings could also help improve the health and livelihoods of millions of smallholder farmers around the world.

“Our study shows that biodiversity is not a luxury — it is fundamental to our health, nutrition and livelihoods,” said lead author who completed the research while at the University of Bristol and is now a postdoctoral research associate at the University of York, both in the United Kingdom. “By revealing how species like pollinators support the food we eat, we highlight both the risks of biodiversity loss for human health and the powerful opportunities to improve human lives by working with nature.”

The research shows that human health is deeply tied to the health of nature. By tracking how pollinators support food production and diets, the study reveals that biodiversity loss isn’t just an environmental problem, it threatens public health and economic stability — as highlighted in the recent U.K. government.

With around 2 billion people relying on smallholder farming and with many facing vitamin deficiencies, protecting the ecosystems that support nutritious food is essential and crucial for sustainable development.

The study’s findings offer a practical framework to help policymakers and farmers design more nature‑positive farming systems. Although the research is focused on Nepal, the same connections shape food systems everywhere. Diets, even in industrialized countries, still depend on the pollinators and ecosystems that sustain global agriculture.

The researchers — spanning universities and non-governmental organizations across Nepal, the U.K., the U.S. and Finland — are now putting their findings into action across Nepal to tackle pollinator declines and repair the pollination systems that support food production. Working with farmers, local organizations, researchers and government partners, they are helping people understand the value of pollinators and how to support them in everyday farming.

By demonstrating why pollinators matter, and sharing simple, practical techniques to support them, the researchers are already seeing farmers adopt changes that boost crop yields, nutrition and income.

“A ‘win-win’ scenario exists where we can simultaneously improve conditions for both biodiversity and people,” said co-author , professor of ecology at the University of Bristol. “It takes ecological understanding, but it costs remarkably little and there are significant gains for both parties.”

This story was adapted from a

For more information or to contact the researchers, email Alden Woods at acwoods@uw.edu.

Source

It took less than 22 years after the discovery of the hepatitis C virus (HCV) for a fast-acting, highly effective treatment to become available. at curing hepatitis C infection, yet the virus remains a critical public health problem. It’s the most common bloodborne illness in the United States, and disproportionately impacts low-income people and marginalized communities.��

A directive aimed to eliminate the disease from Washington state by 2030. The first-in-the-nation plan called for coordination between public health agencies, increased screening, removal of barriers to care and a new approach to purchasing antiviral medications at a discount.��

A new study led by the �������� found that the plan not only expanded access to tests and treatment, but may save money in the long run. , the study found that total costs for hepatitis C-related care rose when the program was first implemented but have declined since, even as increased screening identifies more cases.��

“Comprehensive health insurance claims data can help us see how patterns in testing, treatment and healthcare costs are changing over time across a large population,” said lead author , who worked on the study while completing a doctoral degree at the UW. “That kind of information can help states better understand how initiatives to expand access to care may affect both patients and the healthcare system.”

Working in collaboration with the Washington State Health Care Authority and the Washington State Department of Health, researchers analyzed medical claims data between January 2017 and September 2022. Records included medical and pharmacy claims collected from both private insurance companies and public payers. The data represented about 70% of Washington residents, approximately 6-8 million individuals per year.��

Researchers found that the number of HCV tests administered increased sharply after Washington implemented the elimination initiative. There was a median of 28,375 tests per month at the end of 2017, peaking at 99,161 by July 2020. The number of tests then leveled off at a median of 55,844 per month throughout 2021. Researchers noted that these shifts also aligned with new national guidelines that recommended all adults receive at least one HCV test. Consistent with increased screening, the study observed an initial increase in the total number of HCV cases, followed by a significant decline over time as more people received treatment.

The study also found that total HCV-related costs spiked immediately after implementation of the initiative, but then dropped closer to initial levels. Total monthly costs rose from $45.6 million in 2017 to $70.8 million in 2019, an increase the researchers attributed to expanded screening, which identified more cases to treat. Monthly costs then declined to $56.8 million in 2021.��

While total HCV care costs rose, costs per patient declined by more than 45%. Researchers said the decline may be due to increased screening catching more infections in otherwise healthy people, which would likely improve treatment outcomes and reduce associated risks over time.��

“As an observational study, we cannot directly attribute the changes over time to the state initiative,” said co-author , a professor of global health and of child, family and population health nursing at the UW. “However, it does support the idea that investing in screening and treatment of healthy people without symptoms is more cost-effective than waiting until they become sick.”��

Other authors include , professor of health economics and director of the Comparative Health Outcomes, Policy and Economics (CHOICE) Institute at the UW; , teaching professor of biobehavioral nursing and health informatics in the UW School of Nursing; , assistant professor of child, family and population health nursing and of allergy and infectious diseases at the UW School of Medicine; , research coordinator in the Department of Child, Family and Population Health Nursing at the UW; Judy Zerzan-Thul, Leta Evaskus, Donna Sullivan, Stella Chang and JoEllen Colson of the Washington State Health Care Authority; and Emalie Huriaux and Jon Stockton of the Washington State Department of Health.

This study was funded by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation.

Source

New evidence suggests that a disease-causing tapeworm that has been spreading across the United States and Canada has arrived in the Pacific Northwest. The tapeworm, called Echinococcus multilocularis, lives as a parasite in coyotes, foxes and other canid species and can cause severe disease if passed to domestic dogs or humans.

E. multilocularis has long been recognized as a public health threat in parts of the Northern hemisphere, including Europe and Asia, but was considered extremely rare in North America until approximately 15 years ago, when cases in humans and dogs began cropping up in Canada and the midwestern U.S., indicating that the parasite was spreading.

This study, led by �������� researchers, is the first to detect E. multilocularis in a wild host on the west coast of the contiguous U.S. Researchers surveyed 100 coyotes in the Puget Sound region, and found E. multilocularis in 37 of them. The results were .

“This parasite is concerning because it has been spreading across North America. There have been numerous cases of dogs getting sick, and a handful of people have also picked up the tapeworm,” said lead author , who recently graduated from the UW with a doctorate in environmental and forest science. “The fact that we found it here in one-third of our coyotes was surprising, because it wasn’t found anywhere in the Pacific Northwest until earlier this year.”

When E. multilocularis infects an animal or person, it causes cancer-like cysts to form in the liver and sometimes other organs. If untreated, infection can be fatal.

However, not all carriers become sick. E. multilocularis has a complex life cycle that involves multiple hosts. Canids, which host adult parasites, can support thousands of worms in their intestines without becoming sick. The worms shed eggs that are then passed in their feces.

Rodents — another host — become infected by eating food contaminated with coyote feces. Once consumed, the parasite eggs migrate to the liver and form cysts, ultimately weakening or killing the rodents. The parasite’s life cycle begins again when coyotes prey upon infected rodents.

Humans and domestic dogs are categorized as accidental hosts. Humans may pick up the parasite by consuming tapeworm eggs — in food that is contaminated with coyote or dog feces, for example — and can develop a disease called , characterized by slow-growing metastatic cysts. Symptoms may not appear for five to 15 years after exposure, which complicates diagnosis and treatment.

Alveolar echinococcosis is considered the third most important food-borne illness globally, and one of the top 20 neglected tropical diseases by the World Health Organization. Many countries have developed robust protocols for tracking it.

Domestic dogs that are exposed to E. multilocularis may or may not become sick, depending on where the parasite is in its life cycle at exposure. It is more common for dogs to carry the parasite and shed eggs without developing disease, but dogs that are exposed to parasite eggs may develop the same cancer-like cysts as other infected animals.

“To minimize the risk of dogs getting infected with E. multilocularis, owners should not let them prey on rodents or scavenge their carcasses,” said co-author , an associate professor and director of the Parasitology Diagnostic Laboratory at the Texas A&M University College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences.

Owners can also give dogs preventative medication for worms and ticks and ensure routine veterinary care, which should include diagnostic tests for parasites, Verocai said.

Although the researchers found E. multilocularis in more than one-third of local coyotes tested, there is little evidence of the infection spreading to other hosts. One study in Washington, Oregon and Idaho since 2023, five of which were in Washington. Few human cases have been reported in the U.S., and none on the West Coast.

“The reason that it’s so high in coyotes is because they are regularly eating raw rodents, and that is the primary way for them to get infected. Most domestic dogs are not eating the raw livers of wild rodents,” Hentati said.

Before the uptick in the 2010s, there were several reports of E. multilocularis on remote islands in northwestern Alaska. Those cases were caused by a parasite with different origins than the current outbreak. Genetic analysis pins the earlier cases to a tundra variant while these recent cases are driven by a more infectious variant with European origins. The coyotes in this study carried the newer variant, now thought to be the predominant variant in the U.S. and Canada.

Neither Canada nor the U.S. require dogs to undergo deworming upon arrival, which may explain the spread. Previous studies also proposed that E. multilocularis could have come over in red foxes imported for hunting 100 years ago, but no one knows for sure.

“The main takeaway is that Echinococcus multilocularis is here, it’s pretty prevalent in the local coyote population and people should be aware of potential risks,” Hentati said.

Co-authors include , lab manager at UW; , UW doctoral graduate in environmental and forest science; , a UW professor of environmental and forest science; , a UW associate professor of aquatic and fishery science; of the College of William and Mary; Erika Miller of Sound Data Management; of DePaul University; and of UC Berkeley. This study was funded by The National Science Foundation and the �������� Hall Conservation Genetics Fund.

For more information, contact Hentati at yhentati26@gmail.com.

Source

In the three-and-a-half years since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to an abortion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the fragmented state of abortion access has put medical professionals in a precarious position. Many states have tightened abortion restrictions, with some enacting criminal penalties up to in for physicians who perform abortions. Medical schools have

New research led in part by the �������� found that the new restrictions are not only affecting the current medical workforce — they may be shaping the next generation of physicians. The study, , found that applications to medical residency programs in states that enacted new abortion restrictions dropped sharply following the Dobbs ruling.

The decrease occurred among both male and female applicants. Applications to specialties related to reproductive health — obstetrics and gynecology, family medicine, internal medicine and emergency medicine — saw the largest decreases.

The new study builds on that had shown decreased application rates to residency programs in states with abortion restrictions by applying causal methodologies to understand the impact of the Supreme Court decision and isolating results from male and female applicants.

“This research provides important empirical evidence about how state-level policy changes following Dobbs may influence decisions made by medical trainees about where to pursue their graduate medical education,” said co-author , a UW professor of health economics and director of the Comparative Health Outcomes, Policy, and Economics (CHOICE) Institute.

To learn more about the research, UW News sat down the paper’s three authors: Basu; lead author , assistant professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; and co-author , assistant clinical professor of internal medicine at the University of Arizona. Both Ganguly and Morenz completed their internal medicine residencies at the UW School of Medicine.

The medical residency match process is quite different from traditional higher-ed applications. Can you explain how that works, and how it relates to your study’s findings?

Dr. Anna Morenz: Applicants may apply to as many programs as they want, with some applying to dozens of programs. At the end of interviews, they’ll rank those programs based on their preferred landing spots. The programs, in turn, will rank all the applicants that they received. A computer algorithm then matches everyone with the goal of filling all the residency slots, and it’s very good at that. We know that . So programs are still filling their residency slots even in states with restrictions.

What concerns us about these findings is that there’s an early signal of people avoiding applications to these states. That has potential implications for the quality of the applicants to restricted states, which could not be assessed in our data. There’s typically a high likelihood that people stay where they train for their residency, but if you landed in a restricted state that was low on your rank list, you may be more likely to complete your training and then leave to a non-restricted state. We aim to look at this very important question in projects to come.

Anisha and Anna, you’re both practicing primary care physicians. How big a part of a physician’s training is abortion and other pregnancy-related care?��

Dr. Anisha Ganguly: It’s not a big part of our training traditionally, though there has been a movement to integrate more abortion care into primary care residencies. That’s more the case in family medicine rather than internal medicine, because medication abortion has now become the most common means for abortion care. As internists, we commonly diagnose pregnancies and care for women with medical conditions as they consider family planning.

AM: I do think it’s important to note that a huge percentage of primary care physicians are trained in family medicine. And family medicine physicians are trained in delivery of babies, management of prenatal care, miscarriage management, contraception and abortion. Anisha and I trained in internal medicine, and there is increasing interest to include medication abortion training in internal medicine, as it is fully within our scope of practice.

The effects of the Dobbs decision have been well-documented, and previous work on this topic highlighted changes in OB/GYN residency applications. What’s new in your study specifically?��

Anirban Basu: We had a much longer pre-period than previous studies. We looked back to 2019 to see what had been happening to application rates in these two kinds of states — those that eventually restricted abortion access and those that didn’t — and we showed that these rates had been moving similarly until the ruling. That gives a little more weight to the evidence to say the change is due to the ruling.��

The second big thing is that previous studies did not distinguish whether men and women were changing their behavior similarly. I think that’s a very important finding in our study, that male applicants are changing their behavior at an even higher rate.��

AG: I agree that the gender stratification was an important contribution. The other stratified analysis that we explored was about how specialty type may be driving some of the effects that we saw. A lot of people can reason that OB/GYN applicants would be affected by this directly, and there’s a lot of literature to support that. But what we’re showing is that it’s not just the OB/GYN workforce that’s going to be impacted. It’s the primary care workforce and the emergency medicine workforce.��

We’re hoping that message spreads a little more broadly. This is not just about women’s health. It’s about the future of primary care and the person who’s going to save you from your heart attack in the future.

Let’s talk a little more about that gender stratification. You found that male applicants changed their application preferences at a greater rate than female applicants, which looks like a surprising result. What’s going on there?��

AG: When we generated our original hypotheses, we thought we were going to see increased effects among women applying to residency, but we actually ended up seeing that there were long-term disparities that existed pre-Dobbs between restricted and non-restricted states. This was likely because of the and other state-level laws that were affecting women’s behavior. What we’re seeing is that women had been reading the tea leaves about access to reproductive health care prior to the Dobbs decision, but the decision did unmask a wider problem that drove a lot of new behavior among men.

One of the messages that we are getting from this paper is this is an “all of us” problem. It’s not just about women physicians. It’s about men who are also making choices about their professional autonomy and also about access to reproductive health care for their families. Women have been and will be considering their personal access to care and autonomy before this decision, but perhaps these state restrictions after Dobbs may have newly increased awareness among men.��

Among all these shifts, you found one group whose application rates didn’t change significantly: people applying to highly competitive medical specialities. What do you think explains that stickiness?��

AG: Anna and I had brainstormed about this being a potential effect modifier, because people who are applying in highly competitive specialties like orthopedic surgery or dermatology apply very broadly and don’t get to exercise a lot of choice about where to go. Whereas for large specialities like internal medicine, family medicine or pediatrics, there are a lot of programs in a lot of places, so applicants have more options. In those cases, state-level policies like abortion restrictions can factor more into people’s decision-making.

At an institutional level, what changes could be made to address these trends?��

AG: Institutions can make choices to mitigate some of these effects by supporting candidates with access to reproductive care within the scope of the restrictions that exist. Other industries are building in travel benefits for women who may need to travel to access these services.��

It’s not this aspect of a decision alone that shapes a residency applicant’s choice to go to a specific place or program. But there are other things that institutions can do to make trainees, particularly women, feel supported and valued. If you’re existing in an environment where state policies make women feel a lack of autonomy, then there are workforce policies that can be in place to bolster that sense of autonomy. That could take the shape of parental leave policies, lactation policies, other things that institutions can do to make women feel like, even if this part of your voice has been taken away, we’ll help you with the rest.

AB: One policy that has a long history of literature supporting it is financial incentives. Physicians do respond to financial incentives, but in many cases those incentives need to be quite steep to get people to change their decisions.��

AM: The other option is training opportunities. A lot of programs in states that had laws or restrictions that preceded the Dobbs decision would set up partnerships with organizations in another state where they could send their trainees to learn about pregnancy termination and miscarriage management. That’s a burden on residency programs and residents both. You have to set up housing and travel agreements. But that’s another key thing that programs need to keep in mind in order to recruit applicants.��

For more information or to contact the researchers, contact Alden Woods at acwoods@uw.edu.

Source

Over five decades, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) has become known as the nation’s. Low-income families receiving WIC benefits — which provides nutritious food in designated categories, nutrition education and access to other social services — have .��

But many families who are income eligible to participate in WIC aren’t receiving those benefits. Research has found that households who don’t use the full amount of their nutrition benefits are more likely to drop from the program.��

New research by the �������� has found that households who redeem more of their benefits in the most popular food categories are more likely to remain in the program long-term. Better understanding these patterns could help WIC agencies identify families who might need a little extra encouragement to stay enrolled.

The study was .��

“Finding ways to identify kids and families that are at risk of dropping out of the program is of high importance,” said , a UW assistant professor of health systems and population health and first author of the study. “That’s basically what we’ve identified — a way to flag families who may be at risk of dropping off.”

WIC provides families with food benefits in , with fruits and vegetables and eggs as the most popular. In partnership with (PHFE WIC), a Southern California WIC agency with a large research and evaluation division, researchers analyzed redemption data from 188,000 participating infants and children 0-3 years old, between the years 2019 and 2023.��

Among those children, higher redemption of fruits and vegetables, eggs, whole milk and infant formula was associated with lower risk of their household discontinuing WIC participation.��

The risk of discontinuation decreased in a somewhat linear fashion as redemption rates increased.

Chaparro hopes that local WIC agencies will build on these findings and seek new ways to engage families at risk of dropping off. All WIC providers must offer nutrition education, which could be an opportunity to target households with lower redemption rates in popular categories.��

The findings come just over a year after the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees WIC, . Among other changes, the 2024 rule significantly increased benefits for fresh fruits and vegetables, which has proven popular.

“The expansion of fruit and vegetable benefits for WIC families has been among the most important policy changes of the last decade,” said , director of research and evaluation at PHFE WIC and co-author of the study. “Families want more fruits and vegetables, and this research demonstrates that their inclusion in the WIC food package is essential for longer-term engagement in the program.”

of the University of Tennessee and PHFE WIC is the corresponding author. This study was funded by .

Source

When uncontrolled wildfires moved from the foothills above Los Angeles into the densely populated urban areas below in January 2025, evacuation ensued and a thick layer of toxic smoke spread across the region. Air quality plummeted. Local hospitals braced for a surge,.����

Research led by the �������� and Kaiser Permanente Southern California sheds new light on how the Los Angeles fires affected people’s health, and how people navigated the health care system during an emergency. In the rapid study, published , researchers analyzed the health records of 3.7 million Kaiser Permanente members of all ages living in the region. They found that health care visits did rise above normal levels, especially virtual services.����

In the week after the fires ignited, Kaiser Permanente members made 42% more virtual visits for respiratory symptoms than expected. Those living near a burn zone or within Los Angeles County also made 44% and 40% more virtual cardiovascular visits, respectively, than expected.��

In-person outpatient visits for respiratory symptoms also increased substantially. Members who lived near a burn zone or within Los Angeles County made 27% and 31% more virtual cardiovascular visits, respectively, than expected.��

Extrapolating to all insured residents of the county, the researchers estimated an excess of 15,792 cardiovascular virtual visits, 18,489 respiratory virtual visits and 27,903 respiratory outpatient visits in the first week of the fires.��

The results suggest that people may rely more heavily on virtual health care during climate-related emergencies, and that providers should better prioritize virtual and telehealth services as they prepare for future crises.��

“We saw over 6,241 excess cardiorespiratory virtual visits in the week following the fire ignition. This represents a substantial increase in care,” said, a UW associate professor of environmental and occupational health sciences and of epidemiology who led the research. “While the fires clearly impacted health, virtual care likely enhanced the ability of providers to meet the health care needs of people experiencing an ongoing climate disaster.”��

In collaboration with Kaiser Permanente Southern California, an integrated health care system with millions of members across the region, researchers analyzed health records of people who were highly or moderately exposed to wildfires. They defined high exposure as living within about 12 miles (20 kilometers) of a burn zone, and moderate exposure as living within Los Angeles County but farther than 12 miles during the time of the fires.����

Researchers looked back three years to estimate how many health care visits to expect in the weeks following Jan. 7 — the first day of the fires — under typical conditions. They then estimated how many people sought care in the first week of the fires, when smoke levels were highest, evacuations took place, and Los Angeles County public schools were closed.

In addition to the spike in cardiovascular and respiratory visits, researchers found a sharp increase in the number of visits for injuries and neuropsychiatric symptoms. On Jan. 7, outpatient injury visits were 18% higher than expected among highly exposed members, and virtual injury visits were 26% and 18% higher than expected among highly and moderately exposed groups, respectively. Among those same groups, outpatient neuropsychiatric visits rose 31% and 28% above expectations, respectively.

While both groups made significantly more visits than expected, proximity to the fires mattered. When researchers zoomed in on respiratory-related virtual visits, they found that minimally exposed members made 31% more visits, moderately exposed members made 36% more, and those living in highly exposed areas made 42% more.����

“While healthcare systems often plan to increase the number of hospital beds available or clinic staffing during an emergency, this work highlights the importance of considering virtual care capacity,” said, a UW doctoral student of epidemiology and co-author on the study. “This may be particularly true for climate disasters like wildfires, during which people are advised to stay indoors or when people must evacuate — motivating them to seek care online if at all possible. As climate disasters increase in frequency and intensity, it is essential that health care systems know how to prepare for a sudden and dramatic surge in health care utilization.”��

Other authors on this study are , and of Kaiser Permanente Southern California; of the University of California, Berkeley; of Kaiser Permanente Hawaii; and of Columbia University; and of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego; and of the Scripps Institution and the University of Rennes in France.

This research was funded by the National Institute on Aging and the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences.��

For more information or to reach the research team, contact Alden Woods at acwoods@uw.edu.

Source