Monthly Archives: August 2019

MORE REASONS TO RESIGN FROM THE MIT MEDIA LAB

*MIT Media Lab image by ckelly, CC BY 2.0. Modified by Jason Pramas.*

The connection to Jeffrey Epstein is just one of many questionable relationships

Recently, two scholars announced their plans to cut ties with the MIT Media Lab over its longstanding relationship with Jeffrey Epstein—the New York financier who had been arrested on federal charges for the alleged sex trafficking of minors in Florida and New York and committed (a suspiciously convenient) suicide in custody on Aug 10. Ethan Zuckerman, director of the Center for Civic Media at MIT (which is “a collaboration between the MIT Media Lab and Comparative Media Studies at MIT,” according to its website) and an associate professor of the practice at the MIT Media Lab, and J. Nathan Matias, a Cornell University professor and visiting scholar at the lab, are certainly to be commended for having the courage of their convictions. Particularly Zuckerman, who is literally leaving his job over the Epstein affair.

The lab’s direct connection to such a highly placed, dangerous, previously convicted sex offender is certainly more than enough reason for staffers, affiliates, and grad students to consider resigning their posts. However, it must be said to those who stay on that there have always been plenty of other reasons to resign from the MIT Media Lab from the moment it opened its doors. Because “capitalism’s advanced R&D lab”—as a colleague of mine close to the current fray calls it—has never been picky about which donors it will accept funding from. And that presents a major dilemma for other people of good conscience who happen to be working there.

So, I decided it would be worth a quick spin through some of the misdeeds of a few of the most well-known Media Lab corporate donors. In hopes that other people connected to the highly problematic institution might also decide to announce an abrupt career change in the name of social justice. Better still, they could organize themselves into a movement to either reform where the lab gets its money—and on whose behalf it works—or simply break it up. And maybe spread its projects around to other, less compromised, institutions.

BP and ExxonMobil. Every energy company engaged in extracting oil, natural gas, and coal, processing it, and/or distributing it to be burned in internal combustion engines or power plants is hastening the extinction of the human race by inducing ever-worsening global warming. With knowledge aforethought. As evinced by the organized campaign of disinformation they have all led against climate science, according to the noted book and documentary Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes of Harvard University and Erik M. Conway of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory at the California Institute of Technology. There is no way to take this money and still have clean hands. Whether it’s a thousand dollars or a million. MIT Media Lab leadership knows this and does it anyway.

Ford Motor Company. A company as old and as large as Ford has inevitably done a lot of reprehensible things. Two of the worst: a) producing carbon-burning, greenhouse gas-emitting vehicles for over a century (almost 400 million since 1903) and b) working with energy companies like the ones that became ExxonMobil to form the Global Climate Coalition—a key international lobby group that spearheaded the fight by major corporations against climate science to prevent environmental regulation that would negatively affect their bottom line, according to Oreskes and Conway. It is the fifth-largest vehicle manufacturing company in the world.

Hyundai Motor Company. The third-largest vehicle manufacturing company in the world. And therefore another corporate scofflaw even without looking at its miserable record of union busting. Continuing to flood the planet with millions more carbon-spewing, global warming exacerbating machines every year. Oh, and the Korean conglomerate also got caught “overstating” its vehicles’ mileage a few years back, according to US News and World Report.

Honeywell SPS. While the Safety and Productivity Solutions “strategic business unit” of Honeywell International Inc. is the one giving money to the MIT Media Lab, its parent corporation is a major defense contractor. And a particularly dangerous strain of that breed of sociopathic capitalist entity. According to the Don’t Bank on the Bomb website produced by the interfaith Dutch antiwar group PAX, “Honeywell is involved in US nuclear weapon facilities as well as producing key components for the US Minuteman III ICBM and the Trident II (D5) system, currently in use by the US and UK.” Because what could possibly go wrong with continuing to produce more nukes?

Citigroup. One of the main American banks responsible for the 2008 global financial collapse thanks to heavy investment in derivatives based on subprime housing mortgages. Also, the recipient of one of the largest bailout packages from the federal government in US history. That was either as “little” as $45 billion in Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) money (which it paid back), or as much as $500 billion—when all government assistance it received is included (much of which it didn’t have to pay back)… according to a Wall Street Journal op-ed by James Freeman, co-author of the critical Citigroup history Borrowed Time. Most of the tens of thousands of working families whose lives were ruined when their homes were seized for mortgage nonpayment by the banks which set them up to fail did not get a bailout.

GE. A company I have written a baker’s dozen pieces on, between the start of the GE Boston Deal in 2016 and this year (when said deal fell apart). Once a major employer in Massachusetts, GE not only destroyed the economies of several cities around the state by precipitously shutting down major plants—in part to cut costs by eliminating thousands of good unionized jobs—but also polluted the entire Housatonic River valley from northwest Mass to Long Island Sound, as I covered in parts one and seven of my GE Boston Deal: The Missing Manual series. Yet is still trying to avoid having to finish cleaning that toxic mess up. Furthermore, GE was heavily involved in causing the 2008 global financial collapse through its former “shadow bank” division GE Capital and was the recipient of a huge government bailout via $90 billion in cheap credit it definitely did not deserve, as I outlined in parts two and three of my series.

McKinsey & Company. A virtually unaccountable private consulting firm with its fingers in many multinational corporate pies—and a special emphasis on working with authoritarian governments. The New York Times has spent years exposing some of its more sordid activities, including running the $12.3 billion offshore hedge fund MIO Partners, identifying the social media accounts of three prominent online critics of the Saudi government (one of whom was subsequently arrested), and helping Boeing find some needed titanium by getting a Ukrainian oligarch to bribe eight Indian officials. Plus, it reported—close to home and perhaps worst of all—that the “[Commonwealth] of Massachusetts released new documents from 2013 that detailed McKinsey’s recommendations on how Purdue Pharma could ‘turbocharge’ sales of its widely abused opioid OxyContin. The state said McKinsey advised Purdue to sharply increase sales visits to targeted doctors and to consider mail orders as a way to bypass pharmacies that had been tightening oversight of opioid prescriptions.” The thousands of opiate deaths in the Bay State alone since that time are on the criminal consultancy’s head—along with Purdue, and other corrupt pharmaceutical companies.

GlaxoSmithKline, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG (Roche), Novartis, and Takeda. And speaking of pharmas, here are four that donate to the Media Lab. All of which make huge profits by converting largely publicly funded basic science research into privately owned drug formulas protected by patents and other exclusive rights granted to them by governments. Then repurposing older medications for different uses—for which they receive new patents. According to a Washington Post op-ed by Robin Feldman, the author of Drugs, Money, & Secret Handshakes, “…78 percent of the drugs associated with new patents were not new drugs coming on the market but existing ones. The cycle of innovation, reward, then competition is being distorted into a system of innovation, reward, then more reward.” Ultimately, big pharmas extend their monopolies over the most profitable drugs by using their dominant positions to keep cheaper generic versions produced by smaller pharmas from gaining a foothold for years after they’re finally allowed to enter the market. The amount of unnecessary misery created by such companies in countries like the US that lack a comprehensive national healthcare system able to keep drug prices low is, therefore, immense. On top of the more specific misery caused when Takeda’s diabetes drug Actos was found to cause bladder cancer, according to the New York Times. Or when Roche made serious bank by convincing government to stockpile the influenza drug Tamiflu and was later found to have been withholding vital clinical trial data showing it wasn’t very effective, according to the Guardian. Or when GlaxoSmithKline “agreed to plead guilty to criminal charges and pay $3 billion in fines for promoting its best-selling antidepressants for unapproved uses and failing to report safety data about a top diabetes drug,” according to the New York Times. Or the ongoing scandal resulting from the FDA accusing Novartis of manipulating the “data used to support approval of the drug Zolgensma,” according to Stat. Which is supposed to be a treatment for the rare baby-killing genetic disorder spinal muscular atrophy and is the most expensive drug in the world at $2.1 million for a one-dose treatment, according to NPR.

Deloitte. Just a bunch of harmless accountants, right? Wrong. According to Canada’s National Observer, Deloitte is the largest of the “Big Four” audit firms that have “emerged as central players in the creation and abuse of offshore tax havens.” They also “become champions of the privatization of government services.” Giving a hearty assist to the consolidation of wealth by ever smaller numbers of corporations and individuals. Thus diminishing the governments that were once able to tax the rich and powerful and use the money to provide the very public services that have gradually been privatized—and concentrating more of the remaining public funds in those same private hands.

That’s just a sample of the dozens of MIT Media Lab “member companies.” Not all of them are as bad as the ones above. But few are above reproach. Check them out yourself at media.mit.edu/posts/member-companies/. And consider what kind of university would allow one of its major initiatives to run for decades with such little regard for social responsibility.

Full disclosure: Jason Pramas has interacted with Ethan Zuckerman professionally from time to time.

Apparent Horizon—recipient of 2018 and 2019 Association of Alternative Newsmedia Political Column Awards—is syndicated by the Boston Institute for Nonprofit Journalism. Jason Pramas is BINJ’s executive director, and executive editor and associate publisher of DigBoston. Copyright 2019 Jason Pramas. Licensed for use by the Boston Institute for Nonprofit Journalism and media outlets in its network.

EDITORIAL: DIGBOSTON SEEKS FALL INTERNS

(Interested candidates, please read this whole editorial)

At DigBoston, we like to have a lot of interns working for us at all times. Particularly college journalism students who will soon be seeking jobs as full-time newspaper or magazine reporters. Prior to June, over the first couple of years after my partners Chris Faraone, John Loftus, and I acquired this paper, we had taken as many as eight at once. But when we didn’t find ourselves overwhelmed managing that many talented young people, we figured, “Why not take more?” So this summer we had 17 interns—16 reporters and one marketing specialist. Plus two more reporting interns working remotely who didn’t participate directly in our internship program.

That worked out very well. And we’d like to do the same thing this fall—which is why I’m writing this editorial. But I think it’s worth running through our rationale for wanting to host such a large group of aspiring journalists again before continuing to my pitch for new talent.

There is general agreement that there is a crisis in American journalism. And I write about it frequently in these pages. The old advertising-driven economic model for commercial news outlets is collapsing—helped along by the rise of digital media giants like Facebook, Google, and Amazon—even as consolidation of remaining outlets by a shrinking number of giant media corporations is accelerating the downward slide of regular mass layoffs of journalists in advance of the shuttering of thus-hollowed-out newspapers and magazines on cost grounds. Nonprofit and cooperative economic models have not yet proved to be viable alternatives for struggling independent news operations. And public funding for journalism is not yet on the political table.

The result of this unfortunate situation is nothing less than the gutting of American news media. According to an analysis by the Pew Research Center: “From 2008 to 2018, newsroom employment in the U.S. dropped by 25%. In 2008, about 114,000 newsroom employees—reporters, editors, photographers and videographers—worked in five industries that produce news: newspaper, radio, broadcast television, cable and ‘other information services’ (the best match for digital-native news publishers). By 2018, that number had declined to about 86,000, a loss of about 28,000 jobs.”

But the story is worst for print newsrooms—the very sector that many journalism students looking to intern with us are most interested to work in, and home to the longform reporting that all other media outlets rely on: “This decline in overall newsroom employment has been driven primarily by one sector: newspapers. The number of newspaper newsroom employees dropped by 47% between 2008 and 2018, from about 71,000 workers to 38,000.”

This is bad news indeed. For working journalists and aspiring journalists, yes, but also for our beleaguered democracy. Which relies on the “Fourth Estate”—journalism, broadly writ—to hold powerful individuals and institutions accountable to the will of the people on matters large and small. A democratic society no longer able to support a robust and (at least nominally) independent news sector, whatever it wants to call itself, will not remain a democracy for very long.

Yet journalism schools continue to pump out more trained journalists than in previous years, an effect partly explained as a “Trump bump” reaction to our polarizing president. According to a December 2018 survey of nearly 500 journalism and media educators in 45 states conducted by the Education Week Research Center in coordination with the Journalism Education Association, “student interest in journalism is growing or holding steady.”

On the one hand, it’s easy to feel like said schools are doing a disservice to journalism students, preparing many of them for reporter jobs that no longer exist. Plus it’s certainly true that too many corporatized colleges are more than happy to take advantage of any academic trend that results in more paying “customers.”

But on the other hand, our democracy needs more journalists—especially considering how many paid reporting jobs America has lost of late—not less. And failing to train the journalists we need is doing a disservice to that democracy.

Which is why DigBoston is so committed to running a large internship program. We strongly believe that America should remain (or truly become, given our broadly left-wing orientation) a democracy and that having more journalists in every city and town is one way to help ensure that outcome.

However, we cannot yet afford to pay interns. We are by no means immune to the crisis in journalism, and inherited a newspaper that has needed to be gradually stabilized since 2017 before now being able to even start to think about expanding our operation. And eventually offer at least some paid internships. Allowing us to better meet our goal of always having the most diverse group of interns possible by every metric, including class. A goal we’re actually doing pretty well at reaching season to season thus far. Though we can always improve on that front.

So, interning with us means participating in a very open exchange. We ask reporting interns to work just a few hours a week—basically producing one article at a time—alongside jobs or other internships that do pay and school (although we also have some interns that are not currently in school). We let them start and finish their time with us whenever they want (a two-month stay being typical). We treat our interns as reporters. As “equals with less experience,” as I’ve long typified it. When they’re working with us, their article subjects do not know they are interns. We encourage them to pitch us stories they are interested to cover, and we also offer assignments to them as they come in.

Reporting interns write for us as long as they like and leave us with good clips with an established newspaper for their resumes. Plus, and probably most importantly, they become part of our talent network—people we know and have worked with, and people we can recommend for jobs elsewhere, or maybe even hire ourselves one day. Every two weeks, we ask them to attend “pitch meetings” with Chris and me. If they can make those, great. If not, we can work around that. Most of the knowledge transfer between staff and interns takes place by working together.

And that’s the basic deal. We also have other kinds of interns from time to time, as mentioned in passing above. As such, if you’re a journalism student (or a marketing, graphic arts, photography, design, media studies, English, etc. student), and you’re interested to intern with us, we’d love to hear from you.

All candidates for fall internships can email Chris and me at internships@digboston.com with “INTERNSHIP APPLICATION” in the subject line. Please include a paragraph or two about why you’d like to intern with us and what kind of internship you’re interested in. Then add links to three clips (if you want to be a reporter, or three artworks/photos/designs if you want to work with us on the design side, or three marketing campaigns if you want to help us with that, or appropriate proof that you have skills in whatever other area you’d like to help us with), and a link to your resume. That’s it. No need to write long letters to us.

Our internship program is increasingly competitive, no lie. We don’t take all applicants. We are obviously looking for reporters more than other kinds of interns. But if you believe in our mission, love journalism and democracy, and have some skills to back up your aspirations, then you will have a good shot.

We look forward to your applications. Good luck.

Jason Pramas is executive editor and associate publisher of DigBoston.

HEARTBURN: THE COMMON DIETARY CHALLENGE THAT RESTAURANTS IGNORE

And the simple thing chefs can do to help sufferers

Last Saturday night, my wife and I went out for drinks and snacks at a well-known local restaurant. It’s the kind of place that can get expensive if you’re having a full meal, but isn’t too pricey for a couple of small plates. So hanging out there is an affordable luxury now and then.

One of the attractions of such a hip room is that its chef works overtime to change the menu with the seasons and available ingredients. Which generally makes for an interesting experience.

Problem is: I have heartburn. Not like “ow, ow, I ate four-alarm chili and need some Tums” heartburn. The real deal. Gastroesophageal reflux disease. GERD. A sometimes debilitating condition. Which doesn’t go away. And for which there is no cure—although symptoms can be alleviated.

Living with GERD

I have had GERD for 21 years. So let me explain what it does to people who have it when mealtime rolls around. It trains you like one of Pavlov’s doggies. But through a negative stimulus: pain. All kinds of pain, depending on what you eat and drink and in which combination.

After decades of nasty reactions to certain foods and drinks that sometimes stopped me from sleeping, the way I look at a restaurant menu is completely different than the way people without heartburn look at a menu. Which is to say that—excepting a very small list of more or less “safe” cuisines—I mentally label most of every menu I see as “off limits.”

The trick for people with chronic heartburn is to learn to navigate menus to find something to eat. Because nothing sucks worse than going out with friends, family, and co-workers, and having to sit at the table for an hour sipping water while everyone else is eating, drinking, and making merry.

Unfortunately, the restaurant industry—from the cheapest greasy spoon to the grandest destination dining room—has made absolutely no accommodation at all for people with GERD and related conditions. In an age when even fast food restaurants bend over backwards to provide accommodations like gluten-free options for people with less common conditions like celiac disease and wheat allergy (and a much larger number of misguided dieters). To the point of marking gluten-free dishes on menus, and sometimes making significant changes to their bills of fare.

Some statistics

Celiac disease affects less than 1% of Americans, according to the 2017 article “The Gluten-Free Diet: Fad or Necessity?” in Diabetes Spectrum, a publication of the American Diabetes Association. With the percentage of people with wheat allergy being about the same: less than 1% according to a a 2008 metastudy in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology “The Prevalence of Plant Food Allergies: A Systematic Review.”

Yet, the ADA piece points out that a “2013 study found that 65% of American adults think gluten-free foods are healthier, and 27% choose gluten-free products to aid in weight loss,” despite scientific evidence that gluten-free diets can cause weight gain. Because of what amounted to a fad for gluten-free diets in the preceding decade. Leading many otherwise healthy people to stop eating gluten-rich grains like wheat—as if they were people with celiac disease or wheat allergy. Most without any kind of medical diagnosis. But these faddists demanded gluten-free options at restaurants nationwide until it became a cultural phenomenon. Which resulted in what may be permanent changes to menus across the US.

Meanwhile, according to the American College of Gastroenterology, “More than 60 million Americans experience heartburn at least once a month and some studies have suggested that more than 15 million Americans experience heartburn symptoms each day.”

So over 18% of the US population of 327 million people has heartburn at least once a month. And almost 5% of that population has heartburn every day. Like I do. While under 2% have a condition that makes them unable to consume either wheat or all grains containing gluten. But restaurants have not changed their repertoire in the slightest in response to the larger group of customers with GERD. Maybe because Hollywood types with chronic heartburn are more stoic than their (ostensibly) gluten-intolerant counterparts and the mass media never picked up on the problem, I don’t know.

To return to my restaurant reverie, upon perusing the menu, what did I see?

Out of over 30 dishes, I could not eat a single one without modification. And most dishes were cooked in such a way that I could not reasonably ask for a change that would allow me to eat them.

Now, some readers may think, “C’mon, I’ve had heartburn before, it’s not that bad.” To which I would reply, there’s a big difference between what most people think is heartburn and what people with chronic heartburn experience.

GERD explained

Let’s take a moment to consider what gastroesophageal reflux disease is. To quote the ACG again, “To understand gastroesophageal reflux disease or GERD, it is first necessary to understand what causes heartburn. Most people will experience heartburn if the lining of the esophagus comes in contact with too much stomach juice for too long a period of time. This stomach juice consists of acid, digestive enzymes, and other injurious materials. The prolonged contact of acidic stomach juice with the esophageal lining injures the esophagus and produces a burning discomfort. Normally, a muscular valve at the lower end of the esophagus called the lower esophageal sphincter or ‘LES’—keeps the acid in the stomach and out of the esophagus. In gastroesophageal reflux disease or GERD, the LES relaxes too frequently, which allows stomach acid to reflux, or flow backward into the esophagus.”

To summarize, in people like me, the valve between the food pipe and stomach doesn’t work correctly. It relaxes when it shouldn’t, allowing acid from the stomach to come up into the food pipe and literally burn its more sensitive tissue. That hurts. A lot.

What gastroenterologists—the specialist doctors who treat GERD—are generally terrible at explaining is what they call “lifestyle modifications.” Which, together with medicines that we’re really fortunate to have had for over 30 years now, can allow people with GERD to live reasonably normal lives without (often ineffective) surgery. Those lifestyle modifications include several major changes, but the biggest one is the change to what people like me can eat to avoid pain and damage from the condition.

Because several types of food are “GERD triggers.” Meaning that they cause the valve between the food pipe and stomach to relax as discussed above.

And the information that gastroenterologists—and the nurses and physician assistants that work for them—are particularly bad at imparting to chronic heartburn sufferers is not only which foods to avoid, but which foods are ok to eat.

Which explains why many people have to go through what I’ve gone through: Painful trial and error with food and drink until we answer those questions for ourselves.

A long list of triggers

So, to give you an idea of how complicated this process of adaptation gets, here’s a list of foods and drinks that can trigger GERD:

Anything acidic—especially acidic fruits and vegetables like citrus fruits, peppers (including chiles) and tomatoes, and ubiquitous food additives like citric acid, malic acid, etc.… the safe acid level for food and drink for people with heartburn is considered to be a pH of 5 and above (the pH of pure water is about 7, very acidic lemon juice is around 2, very alkaline and poisonous household bleach is about 11)
Anything too fatty—including fried foods—how much fat or oil in a given meal is too much can be hard to gauge, but GERDers will know when they’ve crossed the line
Anything with caffeine—that’s right, I haven’t had coffee once (ok, I had it literally once) in the last 21 years… and you probably won’t be able to either if you have GERD, unless you’re “lucky” enough to have a mild case … the fact that coffee is both acidic and has caffeine makes it a no-go for many people with chronic heartburn… most teas are also bad… and decaffeinated coffees and teas still contain some caffeine, so are not necessarily OK… only super boring teas like chamomile are safe in this category, though hot liquids in general can hurt
Carbonated beverages—which are made acidic by carbonation in addition to the acids and other triggers present in most fizzy drinks
Anything with mint—sorry, that’s the way it is
Any alcohol—the stronger the booze, and the more you drink, the worse you can be hurt… a problem made still worse if it’s also acidic (like many cocktails are)
Any chocolate except white chocolate and Dutch process cocoa—perhaps the cruelest trigger of all
Garlic, onions, and quite a few spices and aromatics

Perhaps you all will understand why I will sometimes say that “the universe has conspired to make me a Mormon” (minus their famous jello salads, sadly) when asked why I’m not eating and drinking all the things. Even many condiments like ketchup, mustard, and mayonnaise are permanently off the menu for me.

Keep in mind that triggers can also affect different people differently or not affect them at all. There is no universal trigger roadmap for GERDers. And even foods that seem safe may have other chemical compounds in them—not all of which have been identified as triggers by researchers—that will bother some people with chronic heartburn. Watermelon and cucumbers are good examples. They both seem like they should be safe to eat given their higher pH values, but they both have other things in them that can hurt me and others.

In addition, each trigger has its own pain—fat causes me to feel a kind of dull discomfort and acid makes me feel like someone shoved a steel spear through my sternum (which is why I get annoyed with well-meaning hippies that suggest apple cider vinegar as a “cure” for GERD). Plus it’s possible to suffer from more than one kind of heartburn pain at the same time. Most amusing of all, the digestive tract is innervated by the vagus nerve that also innervates the heart and lungs. And our brains can’t differentiate between heartburn pain and scary major disease symptoms very well—explaining how heartburn can make you feel like you can’t breathe or like you’re having some kind of heart attack.

The best way to avoid such distressing pain is to avoid triggers.

But at the nice restaurant like the one my wife and I were at last Saturday, again, every single dish had at least one GERD trigger in it. And I get it, chefs at fancier places like to experiment with innovative combinations. And they often seek a balance of sweet, salty, bitter, acidic, and umami flavors. But acidic foods are the worst heartburn triggers, and current trends in fine dining have seen an explosion of dishes featuring preserved foods like pickles and all kinds of vinegars. So in seeking balance, chefs are causing a great deal of pain for the significant percentage of Americans with chronic heartburn. Notably when they add such triggers without listing them on their menus.

However, like most people with dietary restrictions, people with GERD don’t want to make life difficult for restaurant staff. Thus we tend to nibble whatever garnish or bread or side we can—or not eat at all—when confronted with a difficult menu like I was last weekend.

How chefs can help people with chronic heartburn

By way of remedy, I have one suggestion for America’s chefs. I’m not asking for “heartburn-friendly” notations to appear on every menu. But there’s one really simple thing that chefs in every cuisine can do: just have at least one dish on your menu that people with heartburn can eat. Maybe a protein prepared with a minimum of oil, gently seasoned with salt and simple herbs like parsley; a starch like a baked potato with butter on the side or soba noodles with a dashi-based sauce for dipping; and a non-acidic vegetable like broccoli with a bit of oil or butter and light seasoning as with the protein. When restaurants add that one dish, GERDers will find it. And order it frequently.

Looking at the long list of GERD triggers, it may seem impossible to cook for people with chronic heartburn. But there’s actually a bunch of stuff that we can eat. And people with heartburn will often be super strict with their diets the day before dining out, so that they can have some minor triggers—like fried foods and (typical, not sour or fruit or strong) beer—that they might normally avoid. As when people with diabetes cheat and have something sweet. So chefs can still be creative and make something out of the ordinary that their customers with heartburn can enjoy.

If chefs want some advice on what they can make for us in each of their cuisines, I encourage them to drop me a line at execeditor@digboston.com for some suggestions. I study cooking for fun, have worked in the restaurant industry, and have experimented on myself for many years to determine what people with heartburn can and cannot eat—and what substitutions for common ingredients can make meals more tasty for us. I’m happy to help out, if it means that legions of people like me can eat at more restaurants with less discomfort.

Note: Please do not attempt to self-diagnose GERD or any medical condition. If you’re having symptoms of what you believe might be chronic heartburn, consult a primary care physician. Also, please do not confuse the terms “acidic” or “alkaline” referring to the pH levels of foods when discussing heartburn triggers with the quack pseudoscientific terms “acid-forming foods” or “alkaline-forming foods.” The former terms are science, the latter are dangerous nonsense.

EDITORIAL: DIGBOSTON JOINS MOVEMENT TO SLOW GLOBAL WARMING

Calls for regional consortium of news outlets to improve and expand climate change coverage

Last month, during the fearsome heat wave that saw Boston temperatures soar to 98 degrees Fahrenheit for two days in a row, 400 chickens died in New Hampshire.

According to the Boston Globe, they succumbed to “heatstroke at Vernon Family Farm in Newfields, N.H., around 5 p.m. Saturday when the temperature peaked and the farm could not save them…” The article went on to explain that temperatures got up to 90 degrees in Newfields that day. But chickens cannot take heat over 106 degrees. And, despite the best efforts of the farm staff to keep them cool, the birds expired.

A New Hampshire Union Leader article provided more detail. Farm owner Jeremiah Vernon said that the heat index (a measure of how hot it really feels when relative humidity is factored in with the actual air temperature) on his farm just after 5 p.m. on July 20 when the chickens died was over 110 degrees—and added that another southern NH farm lost 300 chickens the same day. He also mentioned that “the farm has spent about $2,000 to buy generators and circulation fans to help prevent illness in the event of another summer heat wave.” Something he had obviously never had to consider over the farm’s previous 10 years of operation. Several of which were each the hottest years on record in turn worldwide.

As 2018 was. And 2019 may be. June was the hottest month on record. And then July was, too. Global average temperatures are continuing to climb. Month by month. Year by year. There is some fluctuation. Some cooler months and years. But only cooler relative to the ever-hotter new normal. The general trend is upward. And the speed of that climb is accelerating.

Even so, the death of hundreds of chickens from overheating was an unusual enough occurrence to be worth reporting in major New England newspapers. But apparently not alarming enough to mention the role that global warming is playing in increasing the number and severity of hot days summer by summer. Despite happening in the same month that the Union of Concerned Scientists issued a report, “Killer Heat in the United States: Climate Choices and the Future of Dangerously Hot Days.” Which used the best available scientific data to make the following predictions for New Hampshire:

Historically, there have been three days per year on average with a heat index above 90 degrees Fahrenheit. This would increase to 23 days per year on average by midcentury and 49 by the century’s end. Limiting warming to 2 degrees Celsius [3.6 degrees Fahrenheit] above pre-industrial levels could reduce the frequency of such days to 17 per year on average.

By the end of the century, an estimated 970,000 people would be exposed to a heat index above 90 degrees Fahrenheit for the equivalent of two months or more per year. By limiting warming to 2 degrees Celsius, all residents would avoid such days of extreme conditions.

Historically, there have been zero days per year on average with a heat index above 100 degrees Fahrenheit. This would increase to six days per year on average by midcentury and 19 by the century’s end. Of the cities with a population of 50,000 or more in the state, Dover and Nashua would experience the highest frequency of these days. Limiting warming to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels would cap the frequency of such days at two per year on average.

Both the Globe and the Union Leader wrote articles highlighting the report’s findings, to their credit. But neither article echoed the Union of Concerned Scientists’ oft-repeated point that only limiting temperature rise 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels can prevent such calamitous outcomes. And neither publication mentioned global warming as a likely causal factor in the death of the chickens—given that the heat index got up to 110 degrees Fahrenheit the day the doomed birds perished—in their coverage of that story. Even though the UCS report states that the historic average number of days with a heat index over 100 in New Hampshire is “zero.”

This year there was at least one such day. So that isn’t normal. And although it’s difficult to peg particular weather events to global warming, it is thus definitely worth mentioning the strong possibility of a connection in this case. For a very good reason beyond the importance of keeping the societal discussion of global warming going hereabouts: The birds’ deaths add to a growing mountain of evidence that global warming is already beginning to threaten food production.

Like it or not, chickens are an important part of our food supply. But increasingly severe weather caused by a swiftly-heating planet is triggering major floods, major droughts, devastating wind storms, vast wildfires, and the spread of once-tropical insects and diseases—all of which harm crops and food animals, and put our future food security at risk. As sea level rise is starting to impinge on growing lands in low-lying areas. Making the NH chickens the equivalent of canaries in a coal mine when it comes to warning us of the looming danger to planetary food supplies—and highlighting a major problem with allowing average temperatures to continue spiraling skyward.

However, the planet is not getting hotter on its own. It is heating up because governments and major corporations are allowing the amount of carbon that human civilization is burning in the form of oil, gas, and coal to continue to increase. Putting more and more carbon dioxide—the main greenhouse gas—into the atmosphere every year. Despite those same governments and corporations paying lip service to the importance of decreasing the amount of carbon we burn. While the scientific consensus is now agreeing that the only way for our civilization—and perhaps humanity itself—to survive the rolling apocalypse that is human-induced global warming is to bring the net amount of carbon emissions (after somehow deploying carbon capture technologies on an industrial scale) to zero by 2030. A mere decade hence.

Yet in June, Bloomberg reported that “Global carbon emissions jumped the most in seven years in 2018 as energy demand surged, according to BP’s annual review of world energy…” So even huge climate criminal multinationals are aware that carbon emissions have continued to climb unabated—except for a short period after the 2008 financial collapse when manufacturing and transport slowed for a time across the globe.

All of which is to say that journalists need to do a much better job of covering global warming and its many dangerous effects. Too many stories like the sad premature death of the NH chickens do relate to climate change. But that critical angle too often goes unmentioned. And people then go about their daily lives thinking that global warming is something that will only affect humans in the far future or not at all.

WBUR just ran an interesting story on a network of major news outlets in Florida—a traditionally conservative state gradually coming to a political consensus that climate change is real—that have committed to collaborative coverage of the very obvious and constant effects of global warming in that low-lying subtropical farm state. Reporters and editors at those operations have decided that it’s their responsibility to work together to give this most dangerous of crises the constant attention it deserves.

And that’s clearly something that we need to do here in New England.

Especially in the Bay State, where the Union of Concerned Scientists projections are even more dire: “Historically, the heat index has topped 90 degrees in Massachusetts seven days a year, on average.” But if there is no global action to significantly lower carbon emissions, that number would increase to “an average of 33 days per year by mid-century and 62 by century’s end.” Furthermore, the Commonwealth “currently averages no days when the heat index tops 100 degrees,” but without changes to global emissions that figure would rise to “10 days by mid-century and 26 days by century’s end.”

So I’m writing to commit DigBoston to three things.

First, this publication is going on record in joining the environmental movement aimed at slowing human-induced global warming—stopping it no longer being possible. My colleagues and I accept the overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is a terminal threat to Earth’s biosphere and to our species.

Second, we will strive to run more and better coverage of global warming in our own pages. And we will do everything we can to provide regular information on ways people can join together to build the movement to mitigate it.

Third, we are declaring our desire to help start a consortium of news outlets interested in working collectively to improve and expand coverage of global warming in New England. Alternatively, we will happily join an existing effort along those lines, should one we’re unaware of be underway.

Environmental journalists interested in writing for us—and environmental activists and organizations that wish to submit op-eds—are invited to email Chris Faraone and me with pitches at editorial@digboston.com.

And editors, publishers, and producers of news outlets interested in starting talks aimed at creating a reporting consortium on global warming in New England are strongly encouraged to contact us at the same email address.

We’re all overdue to take such steps. But journalists in the northeastern US can help change a lot more hearts and minds about the need to make slowing climate change a societal priority, if we work together.

Jason Pramas is executive editor and associate publisher of DigBoston.