Today is Nag Panchami, a festival that worships snakes in India. The conventional way to worship snakes is by feeding them milk. But did you know that feeding milk to snakes might kill them? That too in a painful manner.

The Science Behind It

Snakes are reptiles that hunt and eat meat, mostly rodents, birds, and other small animals. Snakes lack the enzymes required to break down lactose, the sugar present in milk, in contrast to mammals. As a result, forcing milk into a snake's digestive system might cause serious problems. In fact, snakes are lactose intolerant, experts say that snakes fed milk may experience bloating, indigestion, and dehydration.

In extreme cases, this can lead to the death of the snake.

Forest departments and wildlife experts have issued numerous warnings against this practice. For instance, in 2017 the Thane, Maharashtra, forest department issued a warning saying that giving milk to snakes is not only against nature but can be lethal. The department emphasised that these acts of devotion are cruel because they cause needless agony for the snakes.

Misconceptions and Myths

The idea that snakes consume milk is among the most widespread misconceptions about them. Stories from culture and religion that show snakes sipping milk tend to perpetuate this false idea. But milk isn't something that snakes look for to eat.

Their action when dehydrated is not what is meant to be understood by the idea that they consume milk. A snake may swallow any liquid that is presented to it if it is extremely dehydrated, but this is a desperate move and does not mean that milk is a good food source for snakes.

Wildlife experts emphasise that these customs are not grounded in science, but rather in superstition. These actions hurt snakes and spread unwarranted fear and false information about these reptiles, according to the staff at Wildlife SOS, an organization devoted to the rescue and rehabilitation of wildlife.

Awareness and Education

Raising awareness and promoting education is crucial to stopping the dangerous habit of feeding milk to snakes. By dispelling the misconceptions about snakes and advancing knowledge of their nutritional requirements, we can help prevent needless injury to these reptiles. If you are reading this, then you can spread this information to people you know who might follow this custom. This is how awareness works.

It is important to understand that, even while cultural customs are very important to us, they must change in tandem with scientific advancements to prevent harm from being done to the same creatures we wish to respect.

As the American public grows increasingly health-conscious, a crucial question looms large: are our food systems transparent and safe enough to protect us from long-term disease? With growing awareness of ultra-processed foods (UPFs), harmful food additives, and chemical-laden packaging, the conversation around food recalls, labelling, and transparency has never been more critical. The latest scientific evidence paints a sobering picture food safety in the U.S. may be less about bacterial contamination and more about everyday chemical exposure.

So, will greater transparency and tighter regulations around food ingredients and packaging finally steer America toward a healthier path? Let’s take a closer look at the problem and what it will take to fix it.

The foods we consume daily are often far from natural. Ultra-processed foods—ready meals, packaged snacks, sauces, candies, and sodas are typically manufactured using artificial colorings, preservatives, stabilizers, and sweeteners. But recent findings go beyond nutritional shortcomings, pointing to a far more insidious threat: toxic synthetic chemicals leaching into food from packaging and processing equipment.

A study published in Nature Medicine revealed that UPFs may be contaminated with thousands of harmful substances, including bisphenol A (BPA), phthalates, microplastics, and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs), also known as "forever chemicals." These chemicals are linked to cancer, infertility, asthma, obesity, birth defects, and even neurodevelopmental disorders like autism.

Worryingly, many of these chemicals enter food not because they’re ingredients but through the packaging or industrial equipment used during manufacturing. “The more processed a food is, the greater its burden of synthetic chemicals,” the study authors warned.

Is Eco-Friendly Packaging A False Promise?

There’s been a push toward environmentally friendly packaging solutions, such as recycled plastic and paperboard. However, this trend may carry unintended health consequences.

Researchers from the Food Packaging Forum Foundation in Switzerland caution that recycling plastics intensifies chemical concentrations. Their review suggests that reused or recycled packaging materials often leach more toxins into food—particularly when food is stored long-term or reheated in its packaging, as is common with ready-to-eat meals.

Black plastic kitchen utensils and takeaway containers have been found to contain fireproofing chemicals, which are linked to a host of chronic health problems. The notion that eco-friendly automatically means health-friendly is now being called into question.

What is Loophole That Keeps Dangerous Additives on Shelves?

One of the most glaring issues in food safety regulation lies in the GRAS loophole—a 1958 amendment that permits food manufacturers to bypass FDA safety approval if an ingredient is "Generally Recognized As Safe."

Originally intended for common kitchen ingredients like salt and pepper, the GRAS clause has been exploited by big food corporations. Since 1997, nearly 1,000 food additives have entered the U.S. market without FDA oversight. Even more alarming, the majority of safety evaluations for GRAS substances are conducted by in-house scientists or consultants hired by food manufacturers, creating a significant conflict of interest.

Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has initiated a move to phase out petroleum-based dyes. Yet critics argue this should only be the beginning. To restore consumer trust and protect public health, the FDA must urgently revisit and regulate the GRAS pathway.

Microplastics in Our Blood and Brains

Plastic is now omnipresent—not just in our oceans but in our bodies. Recent research found that 98% of Americans have PFASs in their bloodstream, while microplastics have been detected in the lungs, brain, placenta, and arteries.

In a 2024 study, Dr. Sanjay Rajagopalan from Case Western Reserve University found that microplastics in arteries were closely associated with an increased risk of heart attacks and strokes. "The particles looked quite nasty," he explained. “Jagged, sharp-edged—very similar to cholesterol plaques.”

These findings are a chilling reminder that food packaging is not a trivial matter. It's a public health issue that affects all demographics, regardless of diet, location, or socioeconomic status.

Can Transparency and Recalls Turn the Tide?

Increased transparency in food labeling—clearly indicating not only nutritional information but chemical exposure levels—would empower consumers to make better decisions. The introduction of food recalls based on chemical contamination, not just bacterial outbreaks, would also serve as a meaningful deterrent to negligent manufacturers.

Currently, food recalls are reactive rather than preventive. Most happen after illnesses or lawsuits, rather than proactive regulation. But if the U.S. food industry prioritized chemical transparency, third-party testing, and label disclosures, it could reduce chronic disease risk and restore consumer confidence.

Fixing this systemic issue won't be easy, but the road to national health recovery is clear. Reforming outdated laws like GRAS, holding manufacturers accountable, banning high-risk chemicals in food packaging, and mandating clearer food labels are essential steps.

Moreover, public health campaigns must educate people on the hidden dangers of ultra-processed foods—not just their calories and sugar but their chemical load. In a food economy dominated by speed, shelf life, and profit margins, these changes will require strong political will, corporate responsibility, and consumer demand.

As the scientific evidence mounts, one truth becomes undeniable: what’s in our food—and what surrounds it—matters. America’s health crisis isn’t just a problem of portion size or poor choices. It’s a structural issue rooted in loopholes, lax oversight, and a lack of transparency.

For years, type 2 diabetes has been viewed as a metabolic disorder rooted in lifestyle habits, obesity, and insulin resistance. But a new study, released in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, is challenging that underlying wisdom. In a stunning reversal, researchers have discovered that certain neurons in the brain specifically Agouti-related peptide (AgRP) neurons in the hypothalamus could play an important role in the onset and resolution of type 2 diabetes.

This finding opens the door to an innovative treatment strategy- conditioning the brain to control blood sugar levels, perhaps without changing weight or food consumption. It's a breakthrough that can reimagine how the global medical community treats this chronic illness that plagues more than 400 million people around the world.

Up to this point, the brain was not thought to play a central role in type 2 diabetes pathology. However, investigators at UW Medicine have demonstrated that a hyperactive population of neurons, AgRP neurons found in the arcuate nucleus of the hypothalamus disproportionately contribute to driving hyperglycemia (elevated blood glucose).

Dr. Michael Schwartz, lead author on the study and a leading endocrinologist at the University of Washington, said, "These neurons are having an outsized impact in hyperglycemia and type 2 diabetes." His researchers silenced the talking capability of AgRP neurons with viral genetics—namely, they introduced tetanus toxin to keep these neurons from talking to nearby cells. The findings were nothing short of revolutionary: blood glucose levels normalized for months in diabetic mice, even without adjustments in body weight or food consumption.

This finding contradicts the long-held dogma that weight gain and insulin resistance are the central causes of type 2 diabetes. Lifestyle and genetics are still major players, of course, but the brain's regulatory role in glucose metabolism is also proving to be a major if not central component of the puzzle.

The scientists observed additional modifications in the mice after AgRP neuron repression:

• Lower plasma insulin levels, indicating higher insulin sensitivity
• Higher liver glycogen, reflecting more effective glucose storage
• Lower corticosterone (mouse equivalent of cortisol), which could indicate reduced physiological stress
• Higher lactate levels, potentially increasing hepatic glucose uptake

These indicators as a whole indicate systemic restoration of glucose metabolism—initiated not by a pancreas-directed or weight-loss intervention, but by a brain-mediated one.

How This Research Relates to Ozempic?

Surprisingly, today's diabetes medications such as GLP-1 receptor agonists like the blockbuster medications Ozempic and Wegovy—are also known to suppress AgRP neurons. Dr. Schwartz theorizes that these brain-targeting actions may be a partial explanation for their glucose-lowering effects, independent of their well-characterized effect on weight loss.

The degree to which this effect underlies the antidiabetic action of these drugs is unknown," Schwartz said. But the link raises tantalizing possibilities: might stimulating or duplicating this brain suppression be a new, more effective route to remission from diabetes?

What Implications It Has For Humans?

Although models in animals are not always a good predictor of human outcomes, the repeatability across several mouse studies is encouraging. An earlier study by Schwartz's group had demonstrated that infusing the brain peptide FGF1 directly into the hypothalamus also resulted in diabetes remission—a response that was again linked to the suppression of AgRP neuron activity.

If the same mechanisms exist in humans, neuromodulation or precision-targeted drugs that quiet particular brain circuits could be future treatment—potentially presenting a backup for patients who have difficulty with lifestyle interventions or develop drug resistance.

Is Brain-Targeted Diabetes Therapies the New Treatment?

There are more questions than answers. Why do AgRP neurons get hyperactive in the first place? Can their activity be selectively and safely reduced in human beings? And could this be achieved without impacting other vital functions of the brain?

Dr. Schwartz points out that the study breaks with conventional thinking on diabetes and requires further investigation into the neurobiology of metabolic illness. "This could be a paradigm shift in how we approach and treat type 2 diabetes," he says.

The long-term aim is to translate this brain-based strategy from the bench to the bedside. Successful, it could not only transform diabetes care—it could also lead to greater interest in how the brain controls whole-body metabolism, with the potential for breakthroughs for other diseases linked to metabolic dysregulation.

With millions living with type 2 diabetes globally, the potential of a brain-based treatment framework is staggering. Learning that a few thousand neurons have the power to control blood sugar levels separate from weight loss may change the way the disease is treated, possibly putting an end to the suffering of patients who have long been battling traditional treatments.

As science continues to advance, the neurobiology of metabolism could become the new frontier in international diabetes management. The mind-body connection, it seems, might be more literal and potent than we ever envisioned.

United States (US) is witnessing a concerning surge in measles cases, with more than 1,000 reported so far since the beginning of 2025. This is only the second time since the disease was declared eliminated in America 25 years ago that the number of cases has risen this high. A widespread outbreak spanning at least 30 American states continues to escalate, placing the country on course for what could become the worst year for measles since 2000.

On Friday, at least 1024 cases of the disease were reported of the highly contagious disease. In 2024, the total number of cases reported were 285. Cases have been reported by 30 states, and there have been 14 outbreaks. Most cases—947 out of the total 1024—are outbreak associated. Meanwhile, the vaccination status of 96% of all cases is classified as "unvaccinated or unknown."

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr has continuously downplayed the outbreak. After the death of a 6-year-old boy in February, Kennedy said the child’s death was "not unusual." "We have measles outbreaks every year,” he said at the time." But this spread is unlike others the US has previously seen, becoming the second-highest case count in 25 years. After facing criticism, Kennedy slightly walked back his comments after attending the funeral of an 8-year-old Texas girl who died from measles at the start of April.

Ever since then, Kennedy Jr has continued to downplay the disease. In April, he baselessly claimed that the measles vaccine "contains a lot of aborted fetus debris and DNA particles. He then went on a TV appearance to tell parents to "Do your research" on vaccines, without specifying any information sources. In the latest development, he asked people not to follow his medical advice.

US health secretary Kennedy Jr refused to say whether he would vaccinate his children if he had to choose today, and defended Republicans’ proposal to cut healthcare to fund tax cut extensions. “What I would say is my opinions about vaccines are irrelevant … I don’t want to seem like I’m being evasive, but I don’t think people should be taking advice, medical advice, from me."