NATURE News – Jane Lubchenco is the new head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Confirmed by the US Senate on 19 March, along with John Holdren as the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, Lubchenco takes the helm of a US$4.4-billion agency charged with overseeing research and monitoring in fields from marine mammal populations to climate change.

Lubchenco, the first woman to head NOAA, is going through a series of detailed briefings to get her up to speed on the agency’s many doings. But she is already speaking in generalities about her priorities. “NOAA has a very distinguished track record of science,” she says. “We’re going to build on that track record and use the science that we produce to serve the nation.” Her wish list is nothing if not ambitious: she says she wants to “solve the overfishing problem”, put the agency’s earth-monitoring satellites programme back on track, establish a National Climate Service to provide climate-related data to users, and “protect and restore ocean ecosystems”.

“She is one of the best scientists to give advice to Obama, arguing with the Larry Summerses of the administration and their economic theories,” says Stephen Schneider, a climatologist who directs Stanford University’s Center for Environmental Science and Policy in California, and who has been a long-standing adviser to the Leopold programme.

A marine tidal specialist at Oregon State University in Corvallis, Lubchenco has for decades shared research, training and a lab with her biologist husband, Bruce Menge. “They are very different,” Schneider says. “Jane cruises the Black Sea now with archbishops discussing stewardship of the planet. Bruce prefers to head to the reefs to count species.”  …

Lubchenco will have plenty of chances to use her well-honed
communications skills. On the question of overfishing, for example,
industry groups have been wary of her pro-environment stance in the
past. As administrator, she acknowledges the competing priorities. “The
health of fish stocks is directly related to the health of many coastal
communities, and we need to find a way forward that balances all of the
different concerns,” she says. “It will be a very tough challenge, but
it is doable and we must do it.” (03/25/09)
more…

BBC Nutritional Science — Scientists have produced new evidence suggesting eating lots of red and processed meat damages health. They found big meat eaters had a raised risk of death from all causes over a 10-year period. In contrast, a higher intake of white meat was associated with a slightly reduced risk of death over the same period.

The US study, featured in Archives of Internal Medicine, was based on more than 500,000 people. The researchers, from The US National Cancer Institute, found those
whose diet contained the highest proportion of red or processed meat
had a higher overall risk of death, and specifically a higher risk of
cancer and heart disease than those who ate the least.

People eating the most meat were eating about 160g of red or processed meat per day - approximately a 6oz steak. Those who ate the least were only getting about 25g per day - approximately a small rasher of bacon. Conversely, those who ate the highest proportion of white meat
had a lower risk of overall death, and a lower risk of fatal cancer or
heart disease than those who ate the lowest proportion.

The researchers calculated that 11% of deaths in men and 16% of
deaths in women during the study period could have been prevented if
people had decreased their red meat consumption to the level of those
in the lowest intake group.

The researchers said cancer-causing compounds were formed during high-temperature cooking of meat.
Meat is a major source of saturated fat, which has been associated with breast and colorectal cancer. In addition, lower meat intake has been linked to a reduction in risk factors for heart disease, including lower blood pressure and cholesterol levels. (03/25/09)
more…