Home-schoolers and MAGA acherents more likely to reject vaccines

By Truman Lewis of ConsumerAffairs

A new study examines whether smartphone use on the toilet is linked to more hemorrhoids and longer sit-times

• About two-thirds of people in the study used their smartphones while sitting on the toilet, and those users were much more likely to stay there for over five minutes.

• After adjusting for age, sex, BMI, fiber intake, exercise, and straining, smartphone toilet-use was associated with a ~46% higher chance of having hemorrhoids.

• There were no major differences in constipation or frequency of straining between phone-users and non-users, suggesting that the extra sitting time (not straining) may be the link.

If you find yourself scrolling, checking social media, or catching up on news while sitting on the toilet, youre far from alone. But could that habit be doing more than just eating up your time?

A recent study conducted at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center raises the possibility that using a smartphone during bathroom visits may increase the risk of developing hemorrhoids.

Hemorrhoids are common, uncomfortable, and costly in terms of health care. While things like constipation, low-fiber diets, and pregnancy are established risk factors, researchers wanted to explore whether this modern habit of toilet scrolling also plays a role.

I was struck by this fantastic old study from 1989 in The Lancet on hemorrhoids and reading the newspaper on the toilet, researcher Dr. Trisha Pasricha said in a news release. They looked at how many patients read the newspaper on the toilet and then doctors had a look to see how many of them had hemorrhoids.

But that study did find that there was this association. More hemorrhoids were found amongst people who spent time reading on the toilet. Now in 2025, I don't think anyone's reading the newspaper, but we know everybody's on their phones in the bathroom. So I thought we needed to update this literature for the modern TikTok era.

The study

The study recruited 125 adults who were undergoing routine screening colonoscopies. Before their procedures, participants filled out detailed surveys about their demographics (age, sex, BMI), lifestyle (diet, physical activity), and specific bathroom behaviors: how often they used a phone while on the toilet, how long they stayed, and what they did with their phones (e.g. read news or use social media).

Doctors then checked for hemorrhoids during the colonoscopies. To ensure fairness and reduce bias, two independent endoscopists reviewed a subset of high-quality images to confirm internal hemorrhoids.

The analysis included adjusting for known risk factors like fiber intake, straining, exercise, etc., so the researchers could assess whether phone use was associated with hemorrhoids independent of those factors.

The results

Heres what they found:

• Prevalence of phone use: Roughly 66% of the participants reported using smartphones while on the toilet.

• Longer sit times: Among phone users, 37.3% stayed more than five minutes per toilet visit, compared with only 7.1% of non-users.

• Increased risk: After controlling for other factors, use of a smartphone on the toilet was associated with a 46% increased odds of having hemorrhoids.

• No difference in straining or constipation: The groups did not differ significantly in their reports of straining, constipation, or related gastrointestinal symptoms, suggesting that the extra sitting time may be the key factor.

• Demographics: Smartphone-users were younger on average ( 55 years) than non-users ( 62 years). Also, phone users had lower weekly physical activity.

What we can take away

The study doesnt prove cause and effect it can't show that phones cause hemorrhoids but it does suggest a strong association. If nothing else, it raises a simple habit-change possibility.

My colleagues and I in GI, we all tell our patients not to spend longer than a couple minutes on the toilet, Dr. Pasricha said.

I think whats happening is that time sort of slows down when youre scrolling, and people dont realize just how much longer theyre sitting there.

The food giant is cutting high fructose corn syrup and other additives from U.S. products by 2025

• Tyson Foods will stop using high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), sucralose, BHA/BHT, and titanium dioxide in its branded U.S. products by the end of 2025.

• These changes affect major brands like Tyson, Jimmy Dean, Hillshire Farm, Wright,State Fair, Aidells, and ibp.

• All of the ingredients being removed are currently approved by the FDA and considered safe, but Tyson says this move reflects changing consumer expectations and their own values.

Tyson Foods is making a voluntary change: by the end of 2025, it will eliminate four specific ingredients high fructose corn syrup, sucralose (a sweetener), BHA/BHT (preservatives), and titanium dioxide (a coloring agent) from its branded product lines in the U.S.

These ingredients are already FDA-approved and safe to use. The company isnt reacting to a safety mandate theyre responding to what consumers seem to want more of: simpler ingredient lists, fewer additives, and more transparency.

We continuously review and assess our product portfolio to ensure the highest quality products that meet the needs of consumers, Donnie King, President & CEO of Tyson Foods, said in a news release.

Our decision to remove high fructose corn syrup and other ingredients reflects our ongoing commitment to feeding the world like family, while preserving the taste, value and integrity that define our iconic brands.

Brands & products affected

Youll see the shift in a lot of the familiar names: Tyson, Jimmy Dean, Hillshire Farm, Wright, State Fair, Aidells, ibp, and others.

Earlier this year, Tyson also removed synthetic dyes from its domestic branded products. So this is part of an ongoing trend for them.

What this might mean for you

• Taste & price: Tyson says they aim to preserve the taste, value, and integrity of their products even with these changes.

• Ingredient labels: Going forward, youll see different ingredient lists expect to see substitutes or natural alternatives in place of whats being removed.

• Choice & transparency: If youve been avoiding these additives or want cleaner labels, this change gives you more options in familiar brands.

A recent study reveals whats going wrong and where with child car-seat and seatbelt use

• Nearly 70% of U.S. children under 13 in crashes involving a fatality were using restraints improperly or not at all.

• Common misuses include moving too soon to less protective restraints, seating children in the front, or failing to buckle them in.

• The risk is highest among older kids (412), in low-resources communities, and in certain geographic hotspots; stronger state policies seem to help.

We all know car crashes can be deadly especially for children. But a new study shows just how often safety fails when it comes to using child restraint systems (CRS), like car seats and seatbelts.

According to research out of Lurie Childrens Hospital, nearly 70% of children under age 13 involved in U.S. car crashes with at least one fatality were not in a properly used or age-appropriate restraint.

That means even when seats, belts and laws exist, the people entrusted with children too often arent getting it quite right. The implications are huge: safety isnt just about having the right gear, but about using it correctly, all the time.

Given the continued problem of suboptimal child passenger safety practices among children across the country, there is a need for innovative, targeted programs to promote correct and consistent use of age-appropriate car seats, restraints and seating locations, lead author Arthi Kozhumam, MScGH, said in a news release.

The study

To understand what went wrong and where, the researchers tapped into a massive data source: the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) a national database that records car crashes resulting in deaths.

Heres what they focused on:

• Who: Children under 13 years old involved in crashes with at least one fatality.

• What they measured: Whether the child was using an age-appropriate CRS, whether they were prematurely moved to a less protective restraint, whether they were unrestrained at all, and whether they were seated in the front seat.

• Where and when: The study covered crashes from 2011 to 2021 across the U.S., and also examined community-level factors such as resources (Child Opportunity Index) and geographic concentration (hotspots) of poor restraint use.

• Policy angle: They also checked how state laws (how strict the laws are, fines for first time seatbelt or restraint violations) related to correct restraint use.
  

The results

The findings are sobering. Among the ~50,000 children studied:

• 36% were moved too early to a less protective restraint (for example, transitioning from a car seat to a booster or booster to seatbelt before safe to do so).

• 20% were unrestrained no seatbelt, no CRS.

• 15% were riding in the front seat (which is less safe for younger children overall).

• Further, 9% of those front-seat riders were unrestrained.
  

Certain groups were at greater risk:

• Kids aged 4-7 and 8-12 had higher rates of suboptimal restraint use.

• Children in communities with lower resources (using the Child Opportunity Index as a measure) were more likely to be improperly restrained.

• Certain counties across the U.S. stood out as hotspots where improper practices are much more common.
  

On a brighter note, the study found that in states with stronger child restraint laws including larger fines for first-offense violations there were significantly lower odds of children being improperly restrained.

A novel contribution of this research is our finding of geographic concentrations of suboptimal child passenger safety practices. These areas can be targeted for interventions, especially in the most vulnerable age groups, senior author Michelle Macy, M.D., M.S., said in the news release.

In addition to identifying individual factors and geographic areas that can be targeted for interventions, we show that state policy makes a huge difference in promoting safer transportation practices for child passengers.