Pod Insights Science Friday The Universe Is Expanding Faster Than Expected | Are Food Recalls Actually On The Rise? About this episode The effect, known as the Hubble Tension, has been confirmed by James Webb Space Telescope observations. Also, despite near daily warnings of food recalls, 2024 hasn’t been that different from previous years.
Transcript 0:03 Speaker 00 Is it just me, or does it feel like there have been a lot of food recalls lately?
0:08 Speaker 01 We live in a system of probability. We can only have a certain level of confidence that the food supply is safe.
0:16 Speaker 00 It's Friday, December 13th, and you're listening to Science Friday.
0:22 Speaker 00 I'm Sci-Fry producer Rasha Iridi. It seems like every day, there's a new food recall. Granola bars here, veggies there. But are instances of food recalls actually going up? Or does it just feel like it? Later in the episode, a food scientist will walk us through the ABCs of a food recall, and if there's actually been a wave of them this year. But first, let's check in on this week's science news. Here's Sci-Fry's Kathleen Davis.
0:50 Speaker 02 There's still a lot to be learned about the physics of our universe. And one of the most perplexing ideas is an observation made around a decade ago that the universe seems to be expanding faster than it should be. Now, two years of James Webb Space Telescope data back up that finding. Joining me now to talk about that and other topics from the week in science news is Casey Crownheart, climate and technology reporter at MIT Technology Review. Welcome back to Science Friday, Casey.
1:20 Speaker 03 Thanks so much. Great to be here, as always.
1:23 Speaker 02 Great to have you. So, explain this story to me. The universe is expanding too fast. What does that mean?
1:31 Speaker 03 I know, this one, as most space stories do, broke my brain a little bit. So, basically, there are a couple of different ways that we can kind of measure or observe how fast the universe is expanding. One of them is by kind of looking back at the earliest light from just after the Big Bang, basically, and then doing calculations based on our understanding of like how the cosmos works. Another way is to take space telescope data, look at things that are very far away, stars, supernovas, and you can tell how far away they are and how fast they look to be moving. The problem is that those two ways of observing and measuring the expansion of the universe don't line up. And we've, like you said, we've known that since the Hubble Space Telescope.
2:15 Speaker 03 But now, the James Webb Space Telescope really confirmed that. So now, we can't really blame Hubble anymore and think that it's just some like instrument error. It looks to be a real problem.
2:26 Speaker 02 So when we say too fast, we're talking about in the context of our own understanding of the universe, right?
2:32 Speaker 03 Absolutely, yeah. So it's anything that we're talking about, like huge time scales, huge length scales. So it's significant, it's like about 8% faster, I think, than what it quote unquote should be, but it's significant.
2:45 Speaker 02 So if we have confirmation that it wasn't just some telescope error, where does that leave physicists?
2:51 Speaker 03 Yes, with a lot of questions to answer.
2:54 Speaker 02 Right.
2:54 Speaker 03 So there are definitely theories about where this might be coming from. Some of the leading ones are that dark matter or dark energy have something to do with this. These are things that we know exist in the universe, but are sort of invisible to us. We just kind of infer them based on how they affect regular matter and energy. So that is kind of a leading theory, but there's a lot of research to be done still, for sure.
3:15 Speaker 02 Mm hmm. Okay, I'm going to keep us on the head scratching topics for just a little bit longer. Quantum computing, Google made an announcement this week about quantum computing. Tell me about this.
3:26 Speaker 03 Yes, definitely in the same category of brain breaking. So Google announced this week that it has a new quantum computing chip called Willow. And there are two really interesting things about this new chip. One is that it's capable of performing a computing challenge in less than five minutes, whereas today's, the world's fastest supercomputers would take longer than the age of the universe to do the same kind of work. The other thing that's really interesting about this is that they were able to do error correction in a really interesting way. So one of the big problems that's keeping quantum computers from being useful is that the universe is a really noisy place and things like the movement of electrons and like atomic effects can introduce errors into quantum computing.
4:09 Speaker 03 So the other interesting thing about this, this Google chip announcement, is that they showed that as they built bigger computers or bigger quantum chips, they were able to correct errors.
4:19 Speaker 02 So do we have any idea if this is something that Google's going to save for themselves and do quantum Googly things? Or are they maybe planning to sell this technology to other people?
4:30 Speaker 03 That's a great question. They didn't say in their blog about this what exactly the plans are. But I mean, to be fair, we're still pretty far from this being useful. I mentioned that this is, you know, better at correcting errors than most quantum computers are, but it's still way, way, way off from doing things like solving algorithms or doing good simulations of chemistry, which are some things that quantum computers might eventually be used for. So we've still got a long way to go with the research here.
4:56 Speaker 02 Okay, so let's move on to some more concrete electronics. You have a story for us from this week about improving the electronics of prosthetic devices, right?
5:06 Speaker 03 Yes. So this is a really interesting story in Wired this week. Phantom Neuro is an Austin-based startup that's trying to provide more lifelike control of prosthetic limbs. So basically, what this company is doing is they want to build a thin, flexible muscle implant that they could put, you know, inside a limb, and that would allow amputees to have a wider, more natural range of movement. And also, it would have a faster response time. So this would be a lot better than than current prosthetics at basically being acting more like, you know, a biological limb.
5:36 Speaker 02 So there are other groups that are trying to do more neurological control directly in the brain, right? How does this compare to those things?
5:43 Speaker 03 Yeah, so this would be basically implanted in the muscle, so kind of close to where the amputation is. In theory, it could be less risky than doing a brain implant. You know, messing with the brain is like, what's going on there? And so this could be a little bit, you know, easier and less risky of a surgery and of a process. But also, this company hasn't actually done implants yet. They just announced data testing out kind of a wearable version of their device, which they did show worked pretty well. But the next stage, which they want to do next year, is start to do these implants to see how they really work.
6:16 Speaker 02 What kind of prosthetics have they made or do they plan to make in terms of parts of the body?
6:21 Speaker 03 Oh, yeah. So the test that they did was an arm. And they want to do this with kind of upper limb amputees. And so they were able to kind of have people doing, you know, opening and closing their hand, moving their wrist around, stuff like that. So arms is kind of the target for this first test.
6:36 Speaker 02 Well, great. Well, let's hope that that technology advances to where people need it. Let's pivot away from electronics to some climate news. There's been kind of an Arctic climate report card that's come out with some, as you might imagine, some bad news about the tundra, right?
6:54 Speaker 03 Yes, the news is not great in the Arctic. Based on this data, researchers are able to say kind of for the first time definitively that for the past 20 years, the tundra has been emitting more CO2, carbon dioxide, than it has removed. This is different from what's been happening for the last thousands of years. Usually, the Arctic tundra locks away more carbon than it emits. You know, plants grow, they soak up carbon dioxide as they grow, they get buried in the soil, and that kind of gets locked away. And that's a great thing for, you know, climate change, because we want less of that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere warming up our planet. But as temperatures have risen, in part because of, you know, human activities and fossil fuels, temperatures have started to thaw the tundra.
7:35 Speaker 03 So microbes are kind of active, breaking down that stored plant matter. There are wildfires. And so, yeah, we're seeing that the kind of balance has flipped in the Arctic.
7:46 Speaker 02 Is this report card all bad news? Or is there maybe some good news here?
7:51 Speaker 03 Definitely a lot of bad news, but there are some glimmers of good news, which I always love to look for. So ice seal populations around Alaska that have been challenged by rising temperatures, those populations look to be pretty healthy. There was also a pretty cool winter, which helped Greenland's ice sheet shed the smallest volume of ice in over a decade, which is exciting. But to be clear, you know, it's still melting, it's just melting slower than it has. So, good news, but things are definitely serious.
8:19 Speaker 02 Okay, we'll take it with a grain of salt. Let's shift gears here. We've been hearing a lot recently about bird flu, H5N1. And it's not just in birds, it's in cattle as well. But now there's news about a testing program for milk?
8:35 Speaker 03 Yes, so this is the first mandatory testing program. The USDA announced it this week. So for about nine months, we've seen the virus H5N1 spreading through dairy cows. And there have been some states that have started testing for this to really understand where dairy herds are being affected and to what extent. But now we'll have a mandatory testing program, starting with just six states, but it should expand. And this should hopefully help researchers get a better handle on where this virus is spreading and how.
9:04 Speaker 02 Do we know what's going to happen when a test comes up positive? At poultry farms, for example, we've heard that there's been a ton of culling of animals. Would that possibly happen here, too?
9:15 Speaker 03 Yeah, it's a really different situation because when birds are affected, it can be really deadly for them. Cows seem to very rarely die from infection, so I don't know that that's very likely. I think that really the main goal right now is just tracking and understanding. The virus is, it's possible that it's spreading to humans through cows. We don't really know if infected milk is able to infect humans. But it's possible that if the virus goes through mammals, it could become more dangerous for humans. So just getting a better understanding is, I think, really the key thing here.
9:50 Speaker 02 Well, we'll definitely be keeping an eye out on that news into the new year. But let's shift to some more positive animal news. There's been work towards protecting the monarch butterfly. Tell me about this.
10:03 Speaker 03 Yes, so the US Fish and Wildlife Service is adding monarch butterflies to the threatened species list by the end of next year. It's, you know, kind of bad news, but we've known for a long time that monarch butterflies, we've seen populations going down. And so this status would, basically, like you said, help protect the butterfly. It would prohibit people from killing or transporting it. There would be kind of restrictions around what people can do with milkweed, which is an important food source for monarchs. And it would sort of protect some of their key habitat in California.
10:32 Speaker 02 So would this actually, like, lock away habitat from development?
10:36 Speaker 03 Because this would list them as a threatened species and not an endangered species, it's not quite as strict. But yeah, those 4,000 acres in coastal California, there would be kind of restrictions and like certain rules around development. So it definitely would affect some people, but it's not quite as strict.
10:54 Speaker 02 A lot of things are potentially going to change with this new political climate that we're entering into. Is this something that might be affected by a new administration?
11:03 Speaker 03 Yeah, so this, actually, this announcement opens up a public comment period of about 90 days. And so after that, the agency can kind of lock this in, or tweak it, or cancel it. So it's not a done deal just yet, and we'll have to watch. The agency has until the end of next year if they decide to do it to actually make this final.
11:23 Speaker 02 Okay, so finally, our last story, we're going to move from butterflies to moths, and a story about how they can actually listen to plants, Casey.
11:34 Speaker 03 Yes, I wish I were a moth, because I would love to be able to listen to what my house plants say to me, like what I'm doing wrong.
11:40 Speaker 02 I'm thirsty!
11:42 Speaker 03 Literally. So yes, researchers have known for a while that some plants, when they're under stress, they make noises, they make ultrasonic clicks. So these aren't something that humans can hear, but some animals can, including some insects. And now researchers found that some moths are able to hear those sounds and interpret them as clues to decide where to lay their eggs. So basically, the researchers put two healthy plants on kind of either end of a room. Both were thriving, both were hydrated, but they played the sounds of a dehydrated, you know, not very happy plant from one of those. And the moths avoided that one, even though it was totally fine, it sounded like it wasn't. And so they really
12:24 Speaker 03 tended to prefer the healthy plant that wasn't making any distress noises. The idea here is that, you know, the healthy plant will be able to nourish their eggs, it'll provide a good food source. So they're really going for the healthy plants here. They want the best home that they can possibly get. So that's what researchers think is happening with this, their listening skills.
12:44 Speaker 02 Thank you so much, Casey. Always appreciate your time.
12:47 Speaker 03 Thanks so much for having me. It was great to be here.
12:49 Speaker 02 Casey Crownheart, climate and technology reporter at MIT Technology Review.
12:56 Speaker 02 After the break, are there really more food recalls this year? Stick around, we'll get into it.
13:06 Speaker 04 I'm Kevin Roos.
13:07 Speaker 05 And I'm Casey Newton.
13:08 Speaker 04 And together, we've been tech journalists for decades. Now, we're your hosts of Machine Gods, a new podcast from NPR that makes sense of what AI means for your work, your life, and all of our futures.
13:19 Speaker 05 Twice a week, we'll be exploring the biggest moves in tech and give you unmatched access to the real titans of industry.
13:25 Speaker 04 Listen to Machine Gods from NPR on the NPR app or wherever you get your podcasts.
13:35 Speaker 02 It feels like there's been an onslaught of food recalls this year. We've seen recalls for items like cucumbers and carrots, deli meat and smoked salmon, foods that have been contaminated with salmonella, E. coli, listeria, and more. As a consumer, it can be stressful and even scary to keep up with food recalls. So today, we're going to break down how a food recall happens, if there are actually more recalls this year than in other years, and some food safety tips. Joining me to help us break this down is my guest, Dr. Byron Chavez, food scientist and associate professor at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Welcome to Science Friday.
14:16 Speaker 01 Thanks. Happy to be here.
14:18 Speaker 02 So first off, is there actually a giant wave of food recalls this year?
14:23 Speaker 01 You know, that's a great question that we've been getting pretty frequently these days. And I would say, no, I would argue that if we look at the data, that we haven't really seen a spike in food recalls compared to previous years, if we statistically compare the data. I think that recently, what's been happening is that the recalls that we've had have been very heavily publicized. And so it feels like there's a lot more of those recalls happening.
14:50 Speaker 02 So walk me through how a food recall happens. What is the first step?
14:55 Speaker 01 Yeah, totally. So typically, either the company that produces the food or a state or federal agency discovers that there's something wrong, right? It could be that the product is directly contaminated or there is suspicion that the product might be contaminated. And so at that point, companies will work directly with state and federal agencies to determine what is the level or the class of recall that has to happen and that is based on the risk associated with the potential hazard. And then those federal and state agencies will do some advertising and that is when we see things in the news, we hear things on the radio, it goes on social media, just to warrant the consumers that that product should not be consumed.
15:39 Speaker 01 But it typically starts with testing something or reviewing records and identifying that something may have gone wrong.
15:46 Speaker 02 And so when we're actually talking about contaminations, are we talking about a contamination on the surface of the food or grown into the food or both?
15:56 Speaker 01 It could be any. It could be that, you know, some contamination, it's typically external. So if we think about whole fruits and vegetables, so we typically see external contamination. But if we had something like fresh cut fruit, then of course that contamination is already in the flesh and so it's a little different. Think about meat products that have been tenderized versus meat that has not been tenderized, right? So in the tenderized version, we might have pathogens inside of the tissue, but in the intact version, the pathogens would only be on the surface. So it could be a number of different things.
16:31 Speaker 02 Okay, so let's get into how these recalls actually work. So let's say that I eat a carrot that's coated in E. coli here in New York and then someone else does the same in Alaska and we both get sick. How do federal agencies connect those illnesses back to a common product?
16:51 Speaker 01 Yeah, that's a great question, and that's where the epidemiological system really comes in. So the first thing that would have to happen really is that the two people that got sick actually get sick enough that they seek medical attention. And that is one of the reasons why so many of these instances of foodborne illness are never captured, because we might get sick, but not severely enough that we have to go to the doctor. And so if two people go to the doctor because of a foodborne illness and they get tested and that microbe is identified, then that goes into a national database. And then we can start seeing clusters of people that get sick. And that is where federal agencies like the CDC will come in and try to put two and two together. And we start asking people, what did you eat?
17:36 Speaker 01 And that is how federal agencies will will put those two cases together and then potentially declare an outbreak. But it really starts with sick and medical attention.
17:46 Speaker 02 So one thing I was surprised to learn was that about half of the cases of foodborne illness comes from tainted produce. I would have thought that the majority would be from things like meat and eggs. So why is produce so germy?
18:01 Speaker 01 Yeah, great point, right? And so so we do see that the ecology of foodborne pathogens changes over time, right? And so we used to have a lot of issues with foods of animal origin. So you mentioned meat and poultry and eggs. And a lot of those those problems have switched to minimally processed foods. And so we typically want things like fresh produce. We want to have fruits that are maybe exotic and we want to have them year round. And so that has put a lot of pressure in intensifying agricultural systems. And so that also has put a lot of pressure into importing food commodities, right? Because we want to have them all year round. Produce has become one of these things where we see a lot of issues because they do come from naturally contaminated environments.
18:46 Speaker 01 Obviously, we do a lot of things to prevent direct contamination of that food product on the farm and stuff like that with irrigation water, with biological soil amendments of animal origin, all of those things we really try. But let's keep in mind that a lot of these foods come from natural environments that are open to wildlife, to different sources of water, and that they can become contaminated fairly easily.
19:11 Speaker 02 What are the most common food contaminants? And and how can they affect the body?
19:16 Speaker 01 Yeah, we hear about those all the time, things like Salmonella, E. coli, Listeria monocytogenes. So these are big names of microbes, right? And so something that I really want to point out is that when we think about E. coli, there's lots of different types of E. coli, and most of them actually will never cause illness, right? So we have E. coli in our gastrointestinal tracts. So a lot of those types of E. coli are the good ones. Uh, but we have a soup, um, group of E. coli's that are highly pathogenic. And so that is when we see things like Shiga toxin-producing E. coli, uh, that are really scary names. So think about Salmonella, pathogenic E. coli, and Listeria monocytogenes as the big ones.
19:58 Speaker 01 They can cause anything from diarrhea and fever and sometimes vomiting to some very serious illnesses. So pathogenic E. coli, the one that we saw in the onion, um, outbreak associated with McDonald's.
20:12 Speaker 02 Mm-hmm.
20:13 Speaker 01 Right? So that one, uh, it's particularly dangerous. That one can cause, uh, bloody diarrhea, kidney failure, can, uh, make you go on dialysis the rest of your life. Uh, you could potentially need a kidney transplant, right? So those microbes are extremely serious. There are others that are really serious only for specific groups of population, such as Listeria monocytogenes is particularly problematic for pregnant women, uh, for immunocompromised individuals. But for a healthy adult, it might just be fever or feeling a little unwell. Same with Salmonella. If we get Salmonella, we'll have probably a couple of days that, uh, you're gonna have diarrhea, potentially vomiting, fever, but it's going to be self-limiting. And so let's keep in mind that while all of these microbes can be pathogenic,
20:58 Speaker 01 meaning that they can cause illness, that the severity will largely depend on the immunological status of the host. Um, and so that is when we make differentiations between a healthy adult versus somebody that's immunocompromised, versus children and the elderly, as well as pregnant women.
21:14 Speaker 02 And I would assume that these recalls can be really expensive for companies. So I'm assuming that they're pretty careful about contamination.
21:22 Speaker 01 Yes, something that we really need to keep in mind is that companies don't want this to happen, right? Companies don't want to be associated with that really bad PR. They don't want to have to spend money recalling products. And so they do go through programs where they do mock recalls, right? So they can determine internally what is the percentage of their product that is currently in the market that they can recover if they had to recall a food product. And so they go through these exercises. They work very closely with federal agencies, with state agencies. And like you mentioned, recalls can be very expensive. It is estimated that it can be, depending on the depth of the recall, anywhere from $100,000 to $10 million, right?
22:04 Speaker 01 So if you have products that are everywhere in the country, maybe placed in markets abroad, you still have to take care of those. And so the liability is really high.
22:13 Speaker 02 How good would you say the USDA and the FDA are at catching contaminated foods?
22:20 Speaker 01 They're very good. I would argue that they are very, very good, right? That doesn't mean that there's still a lot of opportunities for improvement. But both of those federal agencies that you mentioned are the two main food safety agencies, really, in the country, right? So we think about USDA for meat, poultry and processed eggs, as well as catfish. And then for the FDA for pretty much everything else. And so they have certain capacities and also they have certain limitations. In the case of the FDA, for example, we have relatively new regulation that allows the FDA to mandate a recall. So they can tell a company, you must remove this product from the market. Whereas the USDA does not have congressional authority to do that.
23:04 Speaker 01 And so they can only pass voluntary recalls. Of course, they have other mechanisms that they can apply so that companies remove products from the market. But in that case, all of the recalls end up being voluntary. It isn't the best interest of the company to voluntarily recall a product because you don't want consumers to get sick with your product.
23:24 Speaker 02 So from what I can understand, these recalls can sound scary, but they're also a sign that the food safety system is working, right?
23:31 Speaker 01 Yeah, you know, this is debatable, right? A lot of people, if you ask somebody else, maybe they would give you a different answer. But I would really lean towards, yes, we see these recalls and we know that the system is working because we are able to catch contamination. Of course, we catch contamination all throughout the food supply from primary production, whether that's for animals or produce, and then through transformation and processing and manufacturing and distribution, as well as at the endpoint, right? For retailers, there's contamination that it's been discovered all throughout and that is a sign that the system works because that product never actually makes it to the pantries of the consumers.
24:14 Speaker 01 But there is certainly a proportion of product that will always be contaminated and that poses a risk because we live in a statistical world, right? Like, we live in a system of probability and catching contamination is a statistical process. We can only have a certain level of confidence that the food supply is safe. And while we have a very, very safe and robust food safety system, there's always opportunities for contamination.
24:42 Speaker 02 So we are almost out of time here, but before we go, can you leave us with a few food safety tips, maybe like three rules that I should follow?
24:51 Speaker 01 Absolutely. You know, the ones that we give all the time, wash your hands. That's a typical one. You want to prevent cross-contamination. You want to make sure that foods that are hot should be hot, foods that are cold should be cold. And in the case of recalls, I really would would say, read the labels, look at the news. I would say subscribe to federal agencies, social media platforms. So if you think of the FDA, the CDC, the USDA, they will keep you informed. So keep an eye open and an ear open for news of products that are being recalled so that you protect yourself and your family.
25:26 Speaker 02 Byron, thanks so much for joining me. This was a great conversation.
25:29 Speaker 01 Awesome. Thank you for having me.
25:31 Speaker 02 Dr. Byron Chavez is a food scientist and associate professor at the University of Nebraska in Lincoln.
25:40 Speaker 00 On Monday's episode, how environmental destruction and the pursuit of empire go hand in hand. Lots of folks helped make this show happen, including? Jason Rosenberg. George Harper. Shishana Buckspahn. Sandy Roberts. Have a great weekend. I'm Rasha Aridi.
Previous You Share Your Gut Microbiome With Your Friends Next How Empire and Environmental Destruction Go Hand-In-Hand Page updated November 5, 2026 · transcript and summary are machine-generated