Consuming less protein could have greater health benefits and extend lifespan

Like so many food issues, fads are often fake and balance is the key

Cell Press

Protein-fortified foods are popping up everywhere, from cereal and coffee to even protein water. But a new review covering over 350 papers on protein restriction and aging-publishing July 31 in the Cell Press journal Cell Press Blue-suggests that consuming less protein could have greater health benefits and could, in some cases, extend lifespan. 

The authors describe how protein restriction slows aging by improving metabolism, changing how cells respond to nutrients, reducing cellular damage, and preserving healthy cell function. 

"It's absolutely crystal clear that there are benefits of protein to muscle growth and exercise response of active individuals," says Dudley Lamming, the paper's corresponding author, of the University of Wisconsin-Madison. 

"But because most people are relatively sedentary, many people are likely consuming more protein than they actually need, which probably has negative health consequences." 

For decades, scientists have known that eating less calories can extend lifespan in many organisms and reduce the risk of age-related diseases like cancer. But maintaining a calorie-restricted diet is difficult for most people. 

Previous studies have found that eating less protein can extend the lifespan of flies and rodents without reducing their calorie consumption. Several recent clinical trials in humans have also shown that reducing protein intake can reduce weight and fat mass and improve fasting blood sugar in humans, even though protein-restricted individuals tend to eat more calories. 

But at the same time, some studies have found that eating more protein could promote weight loss and reduce age-related muscle loss in older adults when paired with exercise. Those findings prompted US authorities to update its dietary guidelines this year, recommending an increase in daily protein intake to 1.2–1.6 grams per kilogram of body weight (0.5–0.7 grams per pound), nearly doubling the previous recommendations. 

Westerly Council Adopts One-Year Data Center Moratorium

Sends Four Charter Questions to November Ballot

Adriana Vossari, RI & Local Government News

Westerly voters will decide four Town Charter questions on November 3, including changes to how council and school committee vacancies are filled and whether the town can stop advertising ordinances in the newspaper. A one-year moratorium blocks data center proposals while zoning rules are written. A proposed short-term rental ordinance would limit unhosted rentals to three coastal zoning districts, but no vote was taken.

The Westerly Town Council adopted a one-year moratorium on data centers, approved four Town Charter questions for the November 3 ballot, and heard a first outline of a proposed short-term rental ordinance at its July 27 meeting, according to the Westerly Town Council's published meeting recording.

The charter debate consumed most of the night and ended with a 4-3 poll vote on the most contested question, a brief recess called mid-argument, and an apology from the council president to a fellow councilor.

One-year data center moratorium adopted

The council opened a public hearing and then approved an ordinance imposing a one-year moratorium on all data centers. The town manager told the council the town's ordinances are currently silent on data centers, and the pause is meant to give the zoning side time to draft rules on where such facilities would be allowed or restricted. He noted that data centers consume large amounts of electricity and water.

One speaker, a former Hopkinton Town Council member who identified himself as a candidate for state representative in District 38, spoke in support. He said once a development application is submitted and becomes vested, a community loses much of its ability to decide where that development belongs. No one spoke against the moratorium.

Councilors approved the ordinance by voice vote after closing the hearing. One councilor said a year "really isn't enough time" for the Planning Board to do the work, but called it the most the council could do.

Charlestown invites residents to meet the team behind Amtrak's New Haven to Providence Capacity Planning Study

Charlestown Asks Residents to Face the Boogeyman

Adriana Vossari, RI & Local Government News

The study covers the rail corridor through southern Rhode Island and could shape future track alignments, speeds and service. Charlestown residents have a direct channel to comment while the work is still at the conceptual stage.

The Town of Charlestown is inviting residents to meet with the Amtrak team running a new study of the rail corridor between New Haven and Providence — the same 65-mile stretch that produced a proposal a decade ago to cut a high-speed bypass straight through town.

The invitation appears on the town's website under the heading "Public Invitation: Amtrak Northeast Corridor Study Team Community Engagement." Charlestown has maintained a dedicated page for Amtrak matters since the last round of federal rail planning, including an email address, amtrak-comments@charlestownri.org, for residents who want their comments on the record with the town.

The study itself began in May and is scheduled to run through May 2028, according to Amtrak's announcement of the New Haven to Providence Capacity Planning Study. It covers the Northeast Corridor main line between the two cities plus the connecting corridor through Hartford toward Springfield, and it accounts for Amtrak intercity trains, CTrail's Shore Line East and Hartford Line, and MBTA commuter rail. The Federal Railroad Administration awarded Amtrak up to $4 million on November 6, 2023, to complete the work.

What the study will and will not do matters for anyone worried about their property. Amtrak says the current phase is limited to conceptual design and analysis of alternatives. It does not include detailed engineering, land acquisition or construction. Any improvements that come out of it would then have to move through the CONNECT NEC and Capital Investment Plan processes, and later stages would depend on funding that has not been appropriated.

Amtrak also states plainly that the study "does not include a preconceived preferred alternative alignment or set of improvements," and that it will not build on NEC Future, the 2012-2017 federal planning effort. The company's own summary acknowledges that the earlier process was "unable to undertake the levels of public engagement necessary to respond to concerns raised by the public regarding that proposal."

That proposal is why Charlestown pays attention. In December 2016, the FRA published a Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement naming the "Old Saybrook to Kenyon Bypass" as a preferred alternative. New track would have entered Charlestown from Westerly, crossed the town from its western edge to its eastern edge, and rejoined the existing line near the Great Swamp State Wildlife Management Area in South Kingstown. The route ran through Burdickville village, the Carter Preserve, the Revolutionary-era Amos Green Farm, tribal land and Historic Columbia Heights housing.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Amtrak is facing handicaps at least as severe as they were in 2017 with train-hating Donald Trump in the White House and conservative Republicans in control of Congress. With no funding or political support, the Kenyon Bypass never stood a chance.  - Will Collette

Town officials learned about it from news coverage. An online petition against the plan gathered more than 1,500 signatures within days. A public meeting in Charlestown on January 10, 2017 drew more than 400 residents along with state and federal staff. Two weeks later, Charlestown and Westerly council members led a delegation of residents to the State House.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Charlestown Citizens Alliance leader and Town Council President Tom Gentz admitted publicly that Charlestown had received earlier notice in a large document that he and his CCA colleagues had failed to read.  - Will Collette

On July 12, 2017, the FRA issued a Record of Decision that removed the track realignment proposal from the New Haven-to-Providence section and instead directed Connecticut and Rhode Island to collaborate on a capacity planning study. That is the study now underway. It was the win Charlestown wanted, and it also created the process that could revisit alignment questions.

The corridor's underlying problems have not changed: limited capacity and curved shoreline track that holds down train speeds.

Amtrak plans roughly 30 outreach events across the study area, beginning with appearances at community events this summer, and says it will form a public advisory committee. Not everyone is satisfied with that approach. Gregory Stroud, editor-in-chief of CT Examiner, who helped lead the opposition to the earlier proposal, has questioned whether pop-up appearances can adequately explain a complicated planning process, and said his concerns extend to how the study itself is structured.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Stroud and his CCA collaborator Ruth Platner have attempted to keep this issue alive for their own purposes even though the Kenyon Bypass issue flatlined almost a decade ago. It has helped Stroud build readership for his website and helped Platner whip up fear among the Charlestown electorate.  - Will Collette

Amtrak has set up a project website and email address where residents can ask questions, submit feedback, ask about upcoming public meetings and sign up for periodic updates. Charlestown residents who want their input logged locally as well can write to the town's Amtrak comment address. The full announcement of the study is posted on Amtrak's media site, and the town's Amtrak page collects the 2016-2017 record at charlestownri.gov.

His final act

Narragansett powwow coming, August 8-9

 

Do personal green lifestyle choices distract from commitment to address bigger issues?

Scientists put the “recycling is a distraction” claim to the test

University of New South Wales

Recycling, greener diets, and other personal climate choices do not seem to distract people from supporting major environmental reforms. A four-year study of nearly 2,800 Australians found that these habits neither increased nor reduced later political engagement. 

Behavioral scientists from UNSW Sydney and Griffith University have found no evidence that personal climate-friendly choices reduce people's interest in broader action on climate change.

The research, published on July 23, followed nearly 2,800 Australians over four years as part of the National Climate Action Survey. Participants who recycled, used reusable cups and containers, took public transportation, ate greener diets, or cycled to work were no less likely to support wider climate policies and collective action.

The findings challenge a common argument that governments and businesses promote small lifestyle changes to shift attention away from more difficult reforms, such as transforming energy systems and regulating industry.

"Individual climate actions neither facilitate nor undermine broader climate engagement," says lead author Dr. Omid Ghasemi from the UNSW Institute for Climate Risk & Response.

"We found no evidence for the idea that personal action might reduce collective action or policy support because people feel they've done enough, overestimate the impact of individual actions, or feel less worried about climate change," he says.

Rather than changing people's political behavior, everyday environmental choices may mainly reflect values they already hold. The researchers found that these actions were neither a trigger nor a barrier to greater public engagement.

In a close vote, Charlestown voters approve Chariho land deal

Almost 900 voted; 50 votes made the difference

By Will Collette

The Chariho School District plans to consolidate its three aging elementary schools into one campus. That plan advanced when Charlestown voters approved a deal that would make the existing Charlestown Elementary School the site for the new unified school.

The vote was 454 YES votes versus 404 NO votes.

If voters in all three towns approve the $116 million bond proposal that will appear on the November 3 General Election ballot, the project will move on to construction that will involve a choreographed construction plan to avoid disrupting the kids’ education.

Charlestown produced a special edition of The Pipeline to provide details about the proposed school project. CLICK HERE.

For those of you wondering about the cost, it’s not out of line. In Rhode Island, average elementary school construction runs at around $580 per square foot. The cost rises to $650 per square foot for high schools. A year ago, it cost nearly $100 million to build an elementary school, but construction costs have soared in 2026 due to inflation driven by tariffs and labor shortages.

Roughly 65% of the construction costs will be covered by the state.

The plan for a unified elementary school arose as the alternative to building new schools in each town, a proposal that voters rejected in 2024.

Trump Administration Demands Hospitals Share Emergency Room Records

Perverting privacy protections for Trump's agenda

By Amanda Seitz, Maia Rosenfeld, and Darius Tahir

A tiny federal agency tasked with protecting the public from injuries caused by lawn mowers and coffeemakers is demanding that some of the nation’s biggest health systems turn over detailed, personally identifiable medical records of all patients who seek help at their emergency rooms.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission, responsible for tracking and issuing recalls of dangerous products sold in the U.S., began discreetly pressuring hospital executives this year to share personally identifiable health data with a private contractor. 

But hospital lawyers and other industry experts have questioned the agency’s authority to collect, its ability to safeguard such a swath of sensitive information, and whether it has followed the legal process to overhaul its surveillance system.

After KFF Health News asked the CPSC about the new system, the agency announced the program on July 21. Left unmentioned, however, is the alarm it has raised among hospital executives, as well as the nature and extent of the agency’s data demands.

In a stark departure from its product-focused mission, the agency’s goal is to obtain millions of Americans’ medical records from emergency room visits for most injuries, from a broken bone to a childhood vaccine reaction or even a suicide attempt, according to documents and emails obtained by KFF Health News, as well as interviews with five people involved or familiar with the discussions.

A CPSC official also insisted in the emails that the institutions provide all ER patients’ identifiable information — such as names, addresses, diagnoses, and other personal details — to the contractor, Konza Health, for analysis. In correspondence with hospital executives, Konza representatives described participation as “mandatory” or “required.”

As a condition of viewing the correspondence, KFF Health News agreed not to republish some of the emails it obtained.

The CPSC wants at least 100 hospitals to start sending detailed medical records by the end of this year, according to an internal memo.

“The whole thing is troubling,” said Sharona Hoffman, a professor of health law at Case Western Reserve University who noted that giving a private entity access to a sweeping collection of data will introduce risks to patient privacy. “If this company really is collecting identifiable information, that is worrisome for patients.”

Trump Unveils Sweeping New Tariffs Expected to Cost Americans $100 Billion a Year

Trump uses bogus claims to continue to impose a national sales tax on Americans

Jake Johnson

On July 23, Donald Trump  unveiled a new package of tariffs targeting 60 countries that account for over 99% of US imports, a move that—if upheld in court—would cost Americans an estimated $100 billion per year in the form of higher costs.

The duties, ranging from 10% to 12.5%, were announced as part of Trump's effort to maneuver around repeated court rulings against his sweeping tariffs, including by the conservative-dominated US Supreme Court. Jamieson Greer, the Trump administration’s top trade official, pointed to Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to justify the new tariffs, introduced with the purported goal of penalizing countries “for their failure to impose and effectively enforce a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labor.”

Observers questioned the administration’s pretext. “Magically, the US tariff probe on forced labor practices is done perfectly in time to replace the generalized but expiring Section 122 tariffs,” noted Bloomberg’s Josh Wingrove, referring to the legal authority Trump cited for earlier tariffs.

Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.) acknowledged that “Section 301 is a law Congress passed,” but added, “What was passed in 1974 was authority to respond to specific unfair trade practices after investigation.”

“What is being done with it now is a tariff on 99% of American trade, set by Trump, with no expiration, no vote, and no ceiling,” said Levin. “If a delegation that broad is lawful, then the tariff power in Article I means very little. The Supreme Court struck down the last version of this policy in February. The response was to avoid Congress and find a different statute and rebuild substantially the same tariffs, effective the same minute the old ones lapsed.”

The list of countries targeted by the Section 301 tariffs includes Canada, Australia, Brazil, China, Mexico, Russia, Norway, the United Kingdom, and Vietnam.

Between the start of his second administration and January 2026, Trump’s tariffs cost American families $1,700 each on average as importers passed burdens onto consumers in the form of higher prices. The tariffs have also hammered small businesses, increased hardship for farmers, and failed to arrest the decline of American manufacturing jobs.

Smokescreen

 

Join Senator Jack Reed to help re-elect Rep. Tina Spears

 

NEWS FROM THE RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN FOR TINA SPEARS

JULY 2026

You're Invited Saturday, August 8th

Join Tina and guest Senator Jack Reed

RSVP

FRIENDS,   Representing District 36 has been one of the great privileges of my life, and I'm asking for your help to keep doing this work together.   I'm thrilled that Senator Jack Reed will join us to kick off our efforts to Get Out The Vote and train volunteers for Election Day.   This September's primary will decide what comes next. I can't do it without you. Come join us for lunch, meet your neighbors and find out what you can do to help. No experience required, just bring yourself (and maybe a friend).   VOLUNTEER EVENT 12:30-1:30 Snacks and Beverages 1:30-2:00 PM Hear from Senator Jack Reed 2:00-3:00 PM Volunteer Training 3:00-5:00 PM Canvassing   RSVP Here. Location provided upon RSVP   Can't wait to see you there,

Get your yard sign! Contact Tina at tina@tinaspearsri.com or call Kathleen 401 439 4469 to get yours!

If you'd like to donate to Tina's re-eelction campaign, please make personal checks payable to: The Friends of Tina Spears 82 Hillside Drive Charlestown, RI 02813   Or click HERE to contribute online or scan the QR code

Want to volunteer on Tina's re-election campaign? Contact us here. We have lots of fun and we'll keep Tina in the State House!

Get our latest updates!

Add your email... Subscribe

State law prohibits the acceptance of any corporate or business checks. Only individuals and RI registered PACs may contribute. RI law requires contributors to note place of employment. Contributions are limited to $2,000 per person per calendar year, and are not tax-deductible.