Amid ongoing fears that Iranian forces could target foreign oil tankers and commercial ships in the Persian Gulf area, the US Navy hassent a guided-missile submarine armed with Tomahawk missiles to waters near the Middle East, a Pentagon spokesman said Saturday.
The nuclear-powered submarine which is currently en route is based out of Kings Bay, Georgia. The US Navy acknowledged that it passed through the Suez Canal this week, with 5th Fleet spokesman Cmdr. Timothy Hawkins describing that "It is capable of carrying up to 154 Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles and is deployed to U.S. 5th Fleet to help ensure regional maritime security and stability."
It remains rare that the US Navy would publicly disclose the location or deployment of submarines wherever they are globally. Likely the submarine could patrol the vital Strait of Hormuz waterway, frequented by international oil tankers, which also has a heavy IRGC Navy presence given some of it comprises Iranian territorial waters near the coast.
But this new submarine deployment could also be part of US muscle-flexing as both Russia and China have been increasing their naval presence in the gulf.
Just last month, Russia, China and Iran held multiple days of joint drills in the Gulf of Oman, dubbed "Security Belt 2023". Additionally, this past week saw a Russian warship dock at a Saudi Arabian port for the first time in a decade.
All of this is also happening against the backdrop of the recent China-brokered détente and normalization of ties between Saudi Arabia and Iran, which the US administration has admitted caught the White House off guard.
NATO is preparing to hold its largest-ever air exercises this June, known as Exercise Air Defender, that will involve 220 aircraft and 10,0000 personnel from 24 nations.
The drills will include a massive deployment of aircraft from the US Air National Guard, which is tasked with defending the homeland but, according to Defense One, also maintains units for "prompt mobilization during war."
The exercises will mark the largest US air forces deployment to Europe for NATO drills since the alliance was founded in 1949.
The purpose of the drills is to simulate what the US would have to do if the war in Ukraine spread into NATO territory.
"This is now putting the alliance together quickly, with a credible force, to make sure that if Russia ever lines up on the NATO border, that we’re ready to go," said Lt. Gen. Michael Loh, the head of the Air National Guard. "We’re going to defend every inch."
The drills will take place from June 12-23 and will stretch from Iceland to Romania, with most flights taking place over Germany and the North Sea. The massive show of force is a clear message to Russia and comes as the US and NATO are escalating support for their proxy war against Moscow in Ukraine.
Finland, which formally joined NATO on Tuesday, will participate in the drills. By admitting Finland, NATO has more than doubled its territory on the Russian border, a region that will now inevitably be further militarized.
Several classified documents detailing United States and NATO plans to assist an upcoming Ukrainian counter-offensive appear to have been leaked online, according to mainstream media reports
On April 6, the New York Times reported that the documents—which contain sensitive military information—had been posted on Twitter and Telegram and were now being shared on pro-Russia social media accounts.
Asked about the reports on April 7, Pentagon spokeswoman Sabrina Singh said: “We are aware of the reports of social media posts, and the Department [of Defense] is reviewing the matter.”
According to the New York Times article, which cites “senior Biden administration officials” to support its claims, the leaked information includes arms-delivery schedules, troop sizes, and other logistical data.
While it does not contain detailed battle plans, the leaked data represents a “significant breach of American intelligence in the effort to aid Ukraine,” the newspaper asserts.
The article also cites military analysts who claim the documents “appear to have been modified in certain parts from their original format,” raising concerns about their authenticity.
The Pentagon, for its part, has yet to explicitly confirm the legitimacy of the documents in question.
The reports appear to have prompted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to convene a meeting with top military advisers to discuss means of preventing the leak of classified information.
According to an April 7 statement released by his office, meeting participants “focused on measures to prevent the leakage of information regarding the plans of the defense forces of Ukraine.”
Ukrainian servicemen atop a tank, amid Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, near the bombed-out eastern city of Bakhmut, in the eastern Donetsk region, Ukraine, on April 2, 2023. (Violeta Santos Moura/Reuters)
Counter-Offensive Expected
Recent weeks and months have seen Russian forces achieve slow but decisive gains, especially in the eastern Donetsk region.
But they have also seen growing indications that a Ukrainian counter-offensive—bolstered by Western arms and support—is imminent.
On April 5, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, speaking at NATO headquarters in Brussels, called on allies to remain “focused intensely on the weeks and months ahead … as Ukraine prepares for a counter-offensive, again, to try to retake more of its territory.”
For months, Ukrainian forces have been pinned down in Donetsk’s city of Bakhmut, where they face superior Russian troop numbers and firepower.
Ukrainian presidential adviser Mykhailo Podolyak speaks during an interview with The Associated Press in Kyiv, Ukraine, on Feb. 16, 2023. (Efrem Lukatsky/AP Photo)
Military experts say the fall of Bakhmut, a key transport hub, would likely pave the way for a Russian advance to the north and northwest.
On April 7, the UK Defense Ministry confirmed Ukraine’s tenuous position in the beleaguered city.
“Russia has made further gains and has now highly likely advanced into the town center and has seized the west bank of the Bakhmutka River,” the ministry said in its daily briefing.
Some indications suggest that the anticipated Ukrainian counter-offensive will attempt to relieve pressure on Bakhmut. Others suggest it will focus on the southern Zaporizhzhia region in hopes of splitting the Russian land corridor to Crimea.
In any event, the counter-offensive—if it happens—will depend heavily on Western support and badly needed Western arms and equipment.
Last month, Kyiv received several German-made combat tanks from both Germany and Portugal, with more reportedly on the way.
Earlier this week, the Pentagon unveiled a fresh $2.6-billion military assistance package for Kyiv, bringing total U.S. contributions to Ukraine’s war effort to $35.2 billion.
Both Sides Fear ‘Disinformation’
Some officials in Kyiv say the leaked documents are part of a Russian disinformation campaign meant to sow confusion before the upcoming counter-offensive.
“These are standard elements of operational games by Russian intelligence,” Mykhailo Podolyak, an adviser to Zelenskyy, said on April 7.
He went on to assert that the leaked information contained “large amounts of fictitious information.”
“Russia is looking for any way to seize back the initiative and … try to influence the scenarios for Ukraine’s counter-offensive plans,” Podolyak said.
Notably, some pro-Russian sources have also raised the possibility that the leaks were part of a “disinformation campaign”—but by Kyiv and its allies.
“I think it’s a classical disinformation operation being conducted to mislead us; to make us think that they [Ukrainian forces] aren’t ready yet,” Vladimir Rogov, a pro-Moscow official in the Russia-held Zaporizhzhia region, said.
He went on to confirm a “significant buildup” in recent weeks of Ukrainian forces near Zaporizhzhia.
“Equipment continues to arrive, equipment is ready, and enough [Ukrainian] militants have been trained,” Rogov told Russia’s TASS news agency on April 7.
The leaked information, he added, could be intended to “make us think an offensive may only be possible after some time—and not within the next few days
My 9-year-old son and his teammates often buySkittlesat wrestling tournaments. Their theory is that eating them before matches gives them energy — especially certain colored ones.
“The red ones make you kick a**,” one boy told me. (I told him that’s good but that he shouldn’t use that word.)
As it happens, Skittles has been in the news lately. Proposed legislation in Californiawould ban the candy, which was first introduced in North America in 1979. At issue are several chemicals most people have never heard of — brominated vegetable oil, red dye No. 3, propylparaben, titanium dioxide, and potassium bromate — that critics allege are dangerous.
"Why are these toxic chemicals in our food?"askedhealth advocate Susan Little. "We know they are harmful and that children are likely eating more of these chemicals than adults.”
Candy companies said the claims have no merit,pointing outthat none of the ingredients have been banned by the Food and Drug Administration.
“Food safety is the No. 1 priority for U.S. confectionery companies,” said a spokesman for the National Confectioners Association. “Chocolate and candy are safe to enjoy, as they have been for centuries.”
Many parents might be shocked by claims that Skittles is harmful, but they shouldn’t be. The war on Skittles is part of a broader effort to control what products consumers can buy.
That gasoline-powered car you drive? Sorry, it’s an existential threat to the environment. Those large sugary drinks you enjoy with your New York-style pizza?Not a chance. The plastic straw you're using to sip those drinks with? Also harmful to the environment. And don’t even think aboutbuying a gas-powered stove.
This is the trendynew strain of anti-capitalism. It’s designed to protect humanity by regulating what you consume — everything from what you eat and drive to the size of your house and how many calories you get to take in each day. The ideology is detailed in German author Ulrike Herrmann’s bestselling bookDas Ende des Kapitalismus(English:The End of Capitalism).
Not all of these efforts have yet been realized, of course. Many, such asCalifornia’s banon the sale of gas-powered cars, are scheduled to go into effect years from now.
Nor does all anti-capitalism look the same. Some proponents want toeliminate meatconsumption to save the planet (in parts of Europe, this isprimarily being donethrough emission regulations). Others seek to protect public health by eliminating foods or food ingredients they deem harmful, as in the case of Skittles.
But notice the common theme: In both instances,theyget to choose, not you. This is what truly matters.
“The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best,” the bestselling economist Thomas Sowell has observed.
Banning Skittles might seem trivial, but it’s not. It’s an assault on limited government and the idea that consumers should be free to decide for themselves what to consume. It’s a battle overwho is sovereignin society and gets to decide what is produced: consumers or planners.
And that’s what the Skittles fight is really about: politics, influence, and power. Indeed, proponents of the legislation admit they don’t think California’s bill will pass, but they hope it will draw the attention of the FDA.
“I think its purpose, which is valuable, is getting the FDA to look again at these chemicals and possibly to reevaluate its entire system for reviewing food additives,” UCLA School of Law professor Diana WinterstoldtheGuardian.
Unlike Winters, I won’t decide for you whether you should eat Skittles. I have no idea what brominated vegetable oil even is. But I do know thattens of billionsof Skittles are consumed each year, and children are doing OK. I’m aware of other government bans onperfectly safe candies.
So yes, I’ll allow my son to keep eating Skittles before his matches. As far as warnings from public health experts, I put as much stock in those as claims that the red Skittles help him “kick a**.”
In 2019, Michelle Przybocki nearly died. Shebecame illfrom digestive complications, and later learned she had a severe case of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Michelle, a speech therapist from Las Vegas, managed to push through the illness, but her life would never be the same. From then on, she experienced debilitating pain every time she ate, sometimes immobilizing her for hours.
To reduce the pain to a manageable level, Michelle decided to adopt a special “low-FODMAP” diet. FODMAP is an acronym that stands for “fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides, and polyols.” Essentially, FODMAPs are certain carbohydrates that are difficult to digest. Doctors often recommend low-FODMAP diets to people with IBS and other digestive disorders, and studies show most patients with IBS report significant improvement in their symptoms when they eliminate FODMAPs from their diet.
Michelle went looking for low-FODMAP foods, but found the search incredibly difficult because she couldn’t find any labels that mentioned whether a food was low in FODMAPs. She tried checking ingredient lists, but this also proved challenging, because different parts of the same ingredient can be high-FODMAP or low-FODMAP, and labels don’t normally specify which part was used. As a result, she would often spend hours in the grocery store scouring the shelves, desperate to find food she could digest more easily.
Michelle barely ate in the first few months because of this challenge, and experienced significant weight loss as a result. She was eventually able to piece together a low-FODMAP diet, but she and countless other people with IBS continue to face difficulty because of the lack of low-FODMAP labeling.
With 10-15 percent of the American population suffering from IBS, why are these labels practically non-existent?
Because they’re illegal.
Michelle Przybocki | Image Credit: Institute for Justice
Filling the Label Lacuna
Ketan Vakil found this out the hard way. Ketan is an entrepreneur in New York City, and he holds an MBA from New York University. Like Michelle, Ketan has a digestive disorder and follows a low-FODMAP diet to manage his symptoms.
Noticing the dearth of explicitly low-FODMAP foods in grocery stores, Ketan started his own business in 2018 to cater to this unmet demand. He called the business Gourmend Foods. When he started the business, Ketan had no idea about the ban, so he put labels on his products advertising the raison d'être of the whole product line, namely, the fact that the products were “digestible” and “gut loving.”
By the summer of 2022, Ketan was selling four low-FODMAP spice blends and a low-FODMAP chicken broth, mostly over the internet but also in a few retail stores. His products have all been certified by Monash University in Australia—a world leader in low-FODMAP foods—and he had no complaints or legal problems prior to last summer.
What changed last summer? Ketan wanted to expand his product line by introducing a low-FODMAP beef broth. Though the product and labeling would be very similar to his chicken broth, there was one key difference: his chicken broth and spice mixes were regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but the beef broth falls under the US Department of Agriculture (USDA).
The reason this difference matters is not because there are different rules between the agencies, just different enforcement mechanisms. Whereas the FDA’s approach is to let businesses do their thing and then hand out warnings and fines if non-compliance is discovered, the USDA’s approach is to require pre-approval for things like product labels. Thus, when Ketan went to the USDA to get his low-FODMAP beef broth label approved, he was told he had to remove the low-FODMAP language. It was then that he learned about the ban.
When Ketan pushed back, officials at the USDA contacted their colleagues in the FDA to confirm the rule. On September 20, the USDA officials got back to Ketan. The FDA had agreed with the USDA and confirmed that these kinds of statements were categorically banned.
Seeing as the FDA is now aware of Ketan’s business—and all his other products violate the same rule—Ketan expects it’s only a matter of time before he receives a warning letter from the FDA. He faces up to a year in prison and a $1,000 fine if he doesn’t change his labels.
Gourmend Foods' Chicken Broth label | Image Credit: Institute for Justice
Banning the Truth
The law in question is a federal regulation that limits what kinds of nutrient content claims are allowed on food labels. Under the regulation, “implied” or “undefined” nutrient content claims are prohibited. “Defined” in this context means “defined in the federal regulations.” Essentially, the government has a list of pre-approved nutrient content claims that are allowed on food labels. Any claims not on the list are illegal, even if they are entirely, verifiably factual.
There is a process for updating this list to allow new claims on labels, but that process takes years, hundreds of thousands of dollars, and quite a few attorneys. Unsurprisingly, the list often fails to keep up with innovations in the food sector.
The terms Ketan is not allowed to use on his labels include “Low FODMAP,” “1 serving low in FODMAP,” “Low FODMAP certified,” “Digestible,” and “Gut-loving.” Notably, no one has suggested these claims are false or misleading. The only reason for prohibiting them is that they do not appear on the government’s list.
Exasperated with this censorious policy, Michelle and Ketan have teamed up with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to file a federal lawsuit challenging the ban on the ground that it violates their First Amendment rights.
“The government does not get to decide which facts consumers are allowed to learn,” said IJ Senior Attorney Justin Pearson. “Businesses have the right to tell the truth, and customers have a right to hear that truthful information. Banning factual information isn’t just harmful, it’s unconstitutional.”
“The federal government is trying to make it even harder for people like me to find the foods that improve my quality of life,” said Michelle. “I just want businesses like Ketan’s to be able to provide me with accurate, important information so that I can make my own informed decisions regarding my health and these essential dietary choices.”
“Ketan and Gourmend attempted to do everything the right way and now they’re being punished for it,” said IJ Litigation Fellow Betsy Sanz. “It should not be against the law to tell the truth.”
The Case against Consumer Protection Laws
The reason this law exists comes down to concerns about fraud. Apprehension about false and misleading labels has prompted the government to not just ban false advertising, but to ban any labeling that doesn’t align with its carefully constructed white list of approved claims. The fear is that if producers can say whatever they want without government oversight they will make inaccurate and unreasonable claims about their products in an attempt to drive sales. Customers can sue for fraud, of course, but this threat may not be sufficient to deter producers from making misleading claims.
The broader issue underlying this regulation is the idea of consumer protection laws. These laws regulate not only labeling, but also product quality, standardization, size, and many other aspects of goods and services. Food items are a frequent target of these laws because they often come with more serious safety risks.
The argument in favor of consumer protection laws more generally is that there is often an imbalance in knowledge between buyers and sellers, known as asymmetric information. The seller usually knows a lot more about the product than the buyer, so the buyer is immediately at a disadvantage. If the seller claims a product has certain characteristics or benefits, how can the buyer know they are telling the truth? What if they are exaggerating?
The buyer, the argument goes, is simply helpless in these situations. As a result, sellers in a free market will take advantage of the buyer’s ignorance and rip them off. To protect consumers from these practices, the government needs to step in and regulate the quality and marketing of these products.
The above reasoning has proven persuasive to many, as evidenced by the ubiquity of these laws. But there are also arguments against these laws, and they are just as important to consider.
For one, detractors argue consumer protection laws are unnecessary. While information asymmetries exist, consumers have many ways to avoid being taken advantage of. One thing they can do is consult consumer reviews online to see what other customers are saying about the product. Another thing they can do is check to see if a product has been certified by a third party. In fact, many sellers seek out third-party certification precisely so they can increase trust with potential customers, just like Ketan did with Monash University. His buyers don’t have to take his word that his products are low-FODMAP. They can check to see if he’s telling the truth.
A second argument against consumer protection laws is simply that they are intrusive. It should go without saying, but these laws are an unjust infringement on the rights of buyers and sellers. It’s none of the government’s business how two people choose to make transactions, nor does the government have any place regulating oral or written speech. Threatening fines and jail time for peaceful interactions like these is hardly ethical behavior.
A third argument against consumer protection laws is that they take options away from consumers, including options that are desperately needed. As Michelle’s story illustrates, these laws prohibit perfectly harmless marketing that would be tremendously helpful if only it were allowed. In other cases, these laws hold back product differentiation and innovation because the standards are so strict. In both cases, the government is actively hurting consumers in the name of protecting them. It is harming the very people it set out to help.
Caveat Emptor
For these reasons and more, free-market proponents reject all such “protection” laws. Instead, we champion the principle of Caveat emptor: let the buyer beware. In short, it is the buyer’s responsibility to investigate what they buy before agreeing to a trade. It is not the government’s job to dictate the terms of trade to the seller on the buyer’s behalf.
“The expression caveat emptor is merely an effort to describe the broader doctrine of freedom of contract as it applies to the vendor-purchaser relationship,” wrote Bertel Sparks for FEE in 1975.
“The interventionist is opposed to letting the consumer examine the article and act on his own judgment. The consumer must not be allowed a freedom of choice. For if he is allowed such freedom, he might hurt himself. And to allow him to hurt himself, that is, to allow the doctrine of caveat emptor to operate, would be immoral. Unwittingly, the interventionist is striving toward a rather drab society where the introduction of new products will be delayed or prevented, and the variety of articles being offered will tend to decline.”
Sparks stresses that the ultimate impact of these laws is to undermine the wishes of consumers and instead have the market follow the wishes of bureaucrats.
“The choice between a caveat emptor, free market system and a consumer protection system is a matter of deciding whether the productive processes should be under consumer control or political control,” he writes. With regulations, “the consumer’s power of choice, and therefore his power to control, has been taken from him.”
Should consumers be allowed to choose what they buy, or should the government restrict their choices for their own good? This is the question we are forced to wrestle with.
The government restricted choices for Michelle and Ketan regarding food labeling, and this restriction has made both of their lives extremely difficult. Countless others have no doubt encountered similar frustrations, trying to find products only to learn that helpful labels are banned, or trying to sell those products only to run into the same stubborn rule.
The government may have meant well, but its attempt at benevolence has caused tremendous hardship.
Perhaps Ronald Reagan was on to something when he quipped, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’”
Patrick Carroll has a degree in Chemical Engineering from the University of Waterloo and is an Editorial Fellow at the Foundation for Economic Education.
Experts at St George's Hospital found masks made 'no discernable difference'
The infection rate remained unchanged even when the mandate was removed
Masks made 'no discernible difference' to Covid transmission rates in hospitals, new research suggests.
Infection rates didn’t soar when mask mandates were removed in NHS facilities during the middle of an Omicron surge.
Experts today said the findings did not mean face coverings are ‘worthless’.
Governments around the world — including the UK — made it mandatory to wear a face covering in indoor public spaces, despite a dearth of rigorous trials into their effectiveness
Researchers found removing the mask policy in phase two did not produce a 'statistically significant change' in the hospital acquired Covid infection rate. Equally, they 'did not observe a delayed effect' in the Covid infection rate once the policy was removed, the study added
This was despite a dearth of rigorous trials into their effectiveness.
Some hospitals still call for patients to cover up before entering, although it is no longer legally required.
Researchers from St George's Hospital in south-west London analysed routinely collected infection control data over a 40-week period between December 4, 2021 and September 10, 2022.
It marked the time between the first week Omicron became the dominant Covid variant and the week universal PCR Covid screening tests were scrapped for patients being admitted.
During the first phase of the study - December 4, 2021 to 1 June 2022 - all staff and visitors were required to wear masks in both clinical and non-clinical areas.
By phase two, the mandate was removed.
Instead, decisions about mask policy were entrusted to individual hospitals.
High risk wards, including ones treating cancer patients and intensive care units, retained the mask obligation.
Researchers found removing the mask policy in phase two did not produce a 'statistically significant change' in the hospital-acquired Covid infection rate.
Equally, they 'did not observe a delayed effect' in the Covid infection rate once the policy was removed.
This was despite transmission of the virus spiking within the community.
Those in high risk wards - the control group - who continued wearing masks, also 'found no immediate or delayed change in infection rate', the study said.
While initially viewed as a virus prevention measure, masks have become a prominent symbol of the Covid culture wars in the UK.
Officials issued mixed messages about their effectiveness at the beginning of the pandemic.
Studies failed to show definitively that masks prevented Covid.
In February, one of the most comprehensive meta-analyses of face coverings to date, by the Cochrane Institute, revealed masks made 'little to no difference' to Covid infection or death rates.
As with any observational study, researchers behind the new UK study warned there were potential limitations.
Those in high risk wards - the control group - who continued wearing masks, also 'found no immediate or delayed change in infection rate', the study said
These included not being able to determine staff infection rates and not assessing adherence to the mask-wearing policy.
Lead author Dr Ben Patterson said: 'Our study found no evidence that mandatory masking of staff impacts the rate of hospital SARS-CoV-2 infection with the Omicron variant.
'That doesn't mean masks are worthless against Omicron, but their real-world benefit in isolation appears to be, at best, modest in a healthcare setting.'
Fellow researcher Dr Aodhan Breathnach added: 'Many hospitals have retained masking at significant financial and environment cost and despite the substantial barrier to communication.
'We hope this empirical evidence can help inform a rational and proportionate mask policy in health services.'
Broccoli is known to be beneficial to our health. For example, research has shown that increased consumption of the cruciferous vegetable decreases incidence of cancer and type 2 diabetes. In a recent study, researchers at Penn State found that broccoli contains certain molecules that bind to a receptor within mice and help to protect the lining of the small intestine, thereby inhibiting the development of disease. The findings lend support to the idea that broccoli truly is a 'superfood.'
"We all know that broccoli is good for us, but why? What happens in the body when we eat broccoli?" said Gary Perdew, H. Thomas and Dorothy Willits Hallowell Chair in Agricultural Sciences, Penn State. "Our research is helping to uncover the mechanisms for how broccoli and other foods benefit health in mice and likely humans, as well. It provides strong evidence that cruciferous vegetables, such as broccoli, cabbage, and Brussels sprouts should be part of a normal healthy diet."
According to Perdew, the wall of the small intestine allows beneficial water and nutrients to pass into the body but prevents food particles and bacteria that could cause harm. Certain cells that line the intestine -- including enterocytes, which absorb water and nutrients; goblet cells, which secrete a protective layer of mucus on the intestinal wall; and Paneth cells, which secrete lysosomes that contain digestive enzymes -- help to modulate this activity and keep a healthy balance.
In their study, which published in the journal Laboratory Investigation, Perdew and his colleagues found that molecules in broccoli, called aryl hydrocarbon receptor ligands, bind to aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AHR), which is a type of protein called a transcription factor. This binding, they found, initiates a variety of activities that affect the functions of intestinal cells.
To conduct their study, the researchers fed an experimental group of mice a diet containing 15% broccoli -- equivalent to about 3.5 cups per day for humans -- and fed a control group of mice a typical lab diet that did not contain broccoli. They then analyzed the animals' tissues to determine the extent to which AHR was activated, as well as the quantities of various cell types and mucus concentrations, among other factors, in the two groups.
The team found that mice that were not fed broccoli lacked AHR activity, which resulted in altered intestinal barrier function, reduced transit time of food in the small intestine, decreased number of goblet cells and protective mucus, decreased Paneth cells and lysosome production, and decreased number of enterocyte cells.
"The gut health of the mice that were not fed broccoli was compromised in a variety of ways that are known to be associated with disease," said Perdew. "Our research suggests that broccoli and likely other foods can be used as natural sources of AHR ligands, and that diets rich in these ligands contribute to resilience of the small intestine."
More broadly, added Andrew Patterson, John T. and Paige S. Smith Professor of Molecular Toxicology and of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, "these data suggest that dietary cues, relayed through the activity of AHR, can reshape the cellular and metabolic repertoire of the gastrointestinal tract."
Other authors on the paper include Xiaoliang Zhou, Debopriya Chakraborty, Iain A. Murray, Denise Coslo, Zoe Kehs, Anitha Vijay, Carolyn Ton, Dhimant Desai and Shantu G. Amin.
The National Institutes of Health Grants, U.S. Department of Agriculture and Penn State Cancer Institute supported this research.
Journal Reference:
Xiaoliang Zhou, Debopriya Chakraborty, Iain A. Murray, Denise Coslo, Zoe Kehs, Anitha Vijay, Carolyn Ton, Dhimant Desai, Shantu G. Amin, Andrew D. Patterson, Gary H. Perdew. Aryl Hydrocarbon Receptor Activation Coordinates Mouse Small Intestinal Epithelial Cell Programming. Laboratory Investigation, 2023; 103 (2): 100012 DOI: 10.1016/j.labinv.2022.100012
