For Safety’s Sake, Handle Plant-Based Meat Safely

"Meat may dominate the grill, but the market for plant-based meat alternatives is growing. That growth is due, in part, to a belief that plant-based products are less susceptible to pathogens like E. coli and Salmonella.

“Many consumers believe that plant-based foods are minimally processed, more healthful, and nutritionally superior to otherwise similar animal-based counterparts,” said John Luchansky, lead scientist at the Agricultural Research Service’s (ARS) Food Safety and Intervention Technologies Research unit in Wyndmoor, PA.

Luchansky said that while there have been improvements in the quality of plant-based meat, there are little to no data on the safety of such foods as it relates to microbial pathogens.

Consumers generally, and correctly, consider meat burgers to be raw and to require cooking prior to consumption. On the other hand, many consumers view plant-based burgers as not raw because they contain plant material and some plants can be eaten raw.

“In reality, plants can sometimes harbor high levels of foodborne pathogens and, as such, plant-based burgers should be considered and handled just like, for example, raw ground beef,” said Luchansky’s research partner, Anna Porto-Fett, a microbiologist.

“If you follow the ‘Four C’s of Food Safety,’ which are Cook (160º F), Clean, don’t Cross contaminate, and Chill, you can appreciably lower—but not eliminate—your risk of foodborne illness,” Porto-Fett said..."
Plant-Based Meat 

U.S. Forest Carbon Data: In Brief

"The flux—or flow—of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is the dominant contributor to the observed warming trend in global temperatures.1 Trees, however, store (sequester) CO2 from the atmosphere, accruing significant stores of carbon over time. Trees also release some CO2 back into the atmosphere (e.g., emissions). This process is known as the forest carbon cycle.

The forest carbon cycle starts with the sequestration and accumulation of atmospheric CO2 due to tree growth. The accumulated carbon is stored in five different pools in the forest ecosystem: aboveground biomass (e.g., leaves, trunks, and limbs), belowground biomass (e.g., roots), deadwood, litter (e.g., fallen leaves and stems), and soils. As trees or parts of trees die, the carbon cycles through those different pools, specifically from the living biomass pools to the deadwood, litter, and soil pools. The length of time carbon stays in each pool varies considerably, ranging from months (litter) to millennia (soil). The cycle continues as carbon flows out of the forest ecosystem and returns to the atmosphere through several processes, including respiration, combustion (e.g., fire), and decomposition. Carbon also leaves the forest ecosystem through timber harvests, by which it enters the product pool. This carbon is stored in harvested wood products (HWPs) while they are in use but eventually will return to the atmosphere upon the wood products’ disposal and eventual decomposition, which could take several decades or more. In total, there are seven pools of forest carbon: five in the forest ecosystem and two in the product pool (HWPs in use and HWPs in disposal sites).

Carbon is always moving through the pools of forested ecosystems. The size of the various pools and the rate at which carbon moves through them vary considerably over time. The amount of carbon sequestered in a forest relative to the amount of carbon released into the atmosphere is constantly changing with tree growth, death, and decomposition. If the total amount of carbon released into the atmosphere by a given forest over a given period is greater than the amount of carbon sequestered in that forest, the forest is a net source of carbon emissions to the atmosphere. If the forest sequesters more carbon than it releases into the atmosphere, the forest is a net sink of carbon..."
Forest Carbon Data 

Dane County Moves into “High” COVID-19 Community Level

"On July 21, 2022, Dane County moved into the Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) “high” COVID-19 community level . At this level, in accordance with CDC guidance, Public Health Madison & Dane County recommends that everyone be up-to-date on their vaccines and take additional precautions, including wearing a mask in indoor public spaces.

“In Dane County, the cases reported to us have remained stable over the last two months, but hospitalizations in our region have seen a gradual increase,” said Janel Heinrich, director of Public Health Madison & Dane County. “At this level, it’s time to layer proven prevention strategies to slow spread and the protect health of our friends, family, and community members.”

The CDC calculates community levels based on three indicators : new reported cases per 100,000 people in the last seven days, new regional hospital admissions with COVID-19 per 100,000 people in the last seven days, and percent of regional inpatient beds occupied by COVID-19 patients.

While reported cases locally are stable, they are likely underreported, given the accessibility of rapid tests. Last week, an average of 64 people were hospitalized with COVID. Hospitalization rates remain much lower than the surge experienced at the beginning of the year.

"Given evidence this new variant may more easily evade immunity it's especially important we protect ourselves and our neighbors," County Executive Joe Parisi said. "We all want to move past talking about and responding to COVID, but variations of the virus remain, and we need to keep looking out for one another."

“We’re seeing this trend of communities moving to medium and high levels nationwide, and it is possible we could bounce between medium and high levels for a few weeks,” said Heinrich. “Being aware of our local landscape—especially if you are immunocompromised or at risk of severe illness—and taking appropriate actions can help prevent the spread of the virus."

All masks and respirators provide some level of protection. However, properly fitting respirators—like N95 and KN95s—provide the highest level of protection. Wearing a highly protective mask or respirator may be most important in certain higher risk situations, or by some people at increased risk for severe disease . Wearing a mask offers protection to the wearer, even if those around them are unmasked.."
COVID-19 and Dane County 

Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs)

"Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) have become popular as unique and non-interchangeable units of data that signify ownership of associated digital items, such as images, music, or videos. Token “ownership” is recorded and tracked on a blockchain (a digital database that records data on a decentralized network of computers without the use of a central authority). In the future, supporters believe NFTs will be used as digital representations of physical items, such as a deed to a house or title to a car. NFTs are commonly used to record and represent ownership of an item, verify authenticity, and enable exchange. However, they do not necessarily reflect the legal ownership of an asset or grant copyright to a digital or physical item. NFT owners purchase only the right to the NFT’s blockchain metadata or “token,” not the underlying asset, unless otherwise specified in external contracts or terms and conditions.

NFTs share many similarities with cryptocurrencies, and they are commonly bought and traded using cryptocurrency. Both NFTs and cryptocurrencies are built and tracked on blockchains, and they share much of the same customer and community base. However, cryptocurrencies are fungible, meaning interchangeable, whereas NFTs are unique and therefore nonfungible. Most users create and buy NFTs on dedicated NFT marketplaces. For a typical NFT, it is created or “minted” on a blockchain, auctioned off or sold at a fixed price on an NFT marketplace, and “stored” in the buyer’s digital wallet. Smart contracts (self-executing contracts or lines of computer code on a blockchain) can mint NFTs or transfer them from one owner to another. In combination, blockchains and smart contracts are the backbone of the NFT ecosystem.

Estimates for the size of the NFT market range from around $17 billion to over $44 billion in annual sales. According to some market analytic companies, sales increased substantially in 2021 but have decreased in 2022. Some high-profile NFTs have sold for millions of dollars, while one study found that 1% of NFTs sell for over $1,594 and that roughly three-quarters of NFTs are sold for less than $15. The NFT market is similarly stratified and concentrated. The two largest marketplaces, OpenSea and LooksRare, account for nearly all monthly NFT trading volume. Additionally, one study found that the top 10% of NFT buyers and sellers make as many transactions as the remaining 90%. The latter statistic may reflect the prevalence of illicit trading practices..."
NFT 

Market-Based Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Legislation: 108th Through 117th Congresses

"Congressional interest in market-based greenhouse gas (GHG) emission control legislation has fluctuated over the past 20 years. Market-based approaches that would address GHG emissions typically involve either a cap-and-trade system or a carbon tax or emissions fee program. Both approaches would place a price—directly or indirectly—on GHG emissions or their inputs, namely fossil fuels. Both would increase the price of fossil fuels, and both would reduce GHG emissions to some degree. Both would allow covered entities to choose the best way to meet their emission requirements or reduce costs, potentially by using market forces to minimize national costs of emission reductions. Preference between the two approaches ultimately depends on which variable policymakers prefer to precisely control—emission levels or emission prices

A primary policy concern with either approach is the economic impacts that may result. Expected energy price increases could have both economy-wide impacts (e.g., on the U.S. gross domestic product) and disproportionate effects on specific industries and particular demographic groups. The degree of these potential effects would depend on a number of factors, including the magnitude, design, and scope of the program and the use of tax or fee revenues or emission allowance values.

As the figure below illustrates, between the 108th and 111th Congresses, most of the introduced bills would have established cap-and-trade systems. Between the 112th and 117th Congresses, most of the introduced bills would have established carbon tax or emissions fee programs. The proposals ranged in the scope of emissions covered from CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion to multiple GHG emissions from a broader array of sources. In addition, the proposals differed by how, to whom, and for what purpose the fee revenues or allowance value would be applied. Some economic analyses indicate that policy choices to distribute the tax, fee, or emission allowance revenue would yield greater economic impacts than the direct impacts of the carbon price..."
Greenhouse Gas 

Casualties from "the 54th"

"The 54th Massachusetts Infantry Regiment was one of the most celebrated regiments of black soldiers that fought in the Civil War. Known simply as "the 54th," this regiment became famous after the heroic, but ill-fated, assault on Fort Wagner, South Carolina in July, 1863. Leading the direct assault under heavy fire, the 54th suffered enormous casualties before being forced to withdraw.

The courage and sacrifice of the 54th helped to dispel doubt within the Union Army about the fighting ability of black soldiers and earned this regiment undying battlefield glory. Shown here is one of the 54th’s casualty lists with the names of 116 enlisted men who died at Fort Wagner. Of the 600 men that charged Fort Wagner, 272 were killed, wounded, or captured.."
The 54th 

Federal Bureau of Investigation Crime Data Explorer

"The FBI's Crime Data Explorer (CDE) aims to provide transparency, create easier access, and expand awareness of criminal, and noncriminal, law enforcement data sharing; improve accountability for law enforcement; and provide a foundation to help shape public policy with the result of a safer nation. Use the CDE to discover available data through visualizations, download data in .csv format, and other large data files..."
Crime Data 

Foreign Direct Investment in the United States

"Expenditures by foreign direct investors to acquire, establish, or expand U.S. businesses totaled $333.6 billion (preliminary) in 2021. Expenditures increased $192.2 billion from $141.4 billion (revised) in 2020 and were above the annual average of $289.7 billion for 2014–2020. As in previous years, acquisitions of existing businesses accounted for most of total expenditures.

In 2021, expenditures for acquisitions were $330.2 billion, expenditures to establish new U.S. businesses were $1.6 billion, and expenditures to expand existing foreign-owned businesses were $1.8 billion. Planned total expenditures, which include both first-year and planned future expenditures, were $345.8 billion.

Expenditures by industry, country, and state

By industry, expenditures for new direct investment were largest in manufacturing, at $121.3 billion, accounting for 36.4 percent of total expenditures. Within manufacturing, expenditures were largest in chemical manufacturing ($63.2 billion) and computers and electronic products ($30.2 billion). There were also notable expenditures in the real estate and rental and leasing sector ($43.8 billion).

By country of ultimate beneficial owner (UBO), the largest investing country was the United Kingdom, with expenditures of $59.7 billion. The Netherlands ($43.1 billion) was the second-largest investing country, followed by France ($35.3 billion). By region, Europe contributed 70.0 percent of new investment in 2021.

By U.S. state, California received the most investment, totaling $64.1 billion, followed by Massachusetts ($53.8 billion) and New York ($34.2 billion)..."
Foreign investments 

Election Worker Safety and Privacy

"Concerns about election workers’ safety and privacy have been reported following the 2020 election, in news reports and testimony before House and Senate committees. Some election workers have raised concerns about physical safety while performing official duties, as well as more general threats outside the workplace or related psychological effects. These threats, along with a perceived increase in politically motivated job scrutiny, have led some to leave, or consider leaving, their roles.

This Insight provides a brief overview of recent developments, legislative proposals, and policy considerations related to election worker safety and privacy.

Background

Federal law prohibits certain types of intimidation of or interference with election workers, including intimidation to discourage serving as a poll watcher or election official or intimidation as a result of such service (18 U.S.C. §245); interference by members of the Armed Forces with election officials’ exercise of their duties (18 U.S.C. §593); and intimidation for helping voters register (52 U.S.C. §20511) or vote (52 U.S.C. §§10307, 20511). Many states have laws that address other threats to election workers, such as through privacy protections for election commissioners. More general laws—such as prohibitions against voter intimidation (e.g. 52 U.S.C. §§10101, 10307, 20511) or harassing or threatening interstate communications—might also apply to some conduct.

Some state and local officials have responded to recent reports of threats to election workers with administrative action or legislative proposals. Election officials have included local law enforcement in poll worker trainings, for example, and implemented new security measures in their offices. Bills have been introduced in state legislatures to establish new prohibitions or protections, such as a Michiganproposal to prohibit intimidation of election workers and a Washington State bill to extend existing privacy protections to election officials..."
Election workers