While many think light drinking isnt a risk, recent research says otherwise

• Even light drinking (under seven drinks a week) showed no protective effect in the largest combined study to date.

• Genetic analyses suggest the more alcohol youre predisposed to consume, the higher your dementia risk.

• The drop in drinking before diagnosis hints that earlier studies showing benefits may have been misled by reverse causation.

If youve ever heard that a glass of wine a day is good for your brain, recent research suggests its time to pause and reconsider.

A new large-scale study combining observational data and genetic methods argues that any amount of alcohol might increase the risk of dementia. What looked like a protective effect of light or moderate drinking in past studies could, in fact, be a misleading artifact.

The findings challenge a long-held assumption: that low levels of alcohol are harmless or even beneficial for cognitive health.

Our study findings support a detrimental effect of all types of alcohol consumption on dementia risk, with no evidence supporting the previously suggested protective effect of moderate drinking, the researchers wrote.

The study

To tackle this question, researchers used two main strategies:

1. Observational data. They drew from two major biobank projects the U.S. Million Veteran Program and the U.K. Biobank to examine real-world drinking habits and incidence of dementia. Participants between 56 and 72 years old were followed over time until they developed dementia, died, or reached the end of follow-up (2019 for MVP, 2022 for UKB). Alcohol intake was self-reported (frequency, volume) and supplemented with the AUDIT-C screening tool for risky drinking behaviors (like binge drinking). In total, 559,559 people entered the observational analyses, and 14,540 developed dementia during the follow-up.

2. Mendelian randomization (genetic analysis). This method treats genetic variants associated with alcohol consumption as proxies (or instruments) for long-term drinking behavior. In this study, they considered three different genetic measures: predisposition toward average weekly drinks, risky drinking, and alcohol dependence. The goal: to minimize confounding (other factors influencing both drinking and dementia) and test whether a causal link might exist. For the genetic analyses, they drew on genome-wide association study (GWAS) data covering millions of people.
   

By combining both approaches, the researchers hoped to triangulate evidence: observations can show patterns, and genetics can help clarify whether those patterns suggest causation.

The results

In the observational analyses, the relationship between alcohol and dementia looked U-shaped. This means that both low and high levels of something are linked to worse outcomes, while moderate levels are linked to the best outcomes.

For this study, that looked like: both abstainers and heavy drinkers (40+ drinks/week) had about a 41% higher risk of dementia, compared with light drinkers (less than seven drinks per week). That figure climbed to 51% higher for those with alcohol dependence. That pattern might look like light drinking is protective but observational data alone can be misleading.

The genetic (Mendelian randomisation) analyses told a different story: there was no protective effect at low levels. Instead, dementia risk rose steadily with greater genetically predicted alcohol intake across all categories. For example, each additional one to three drinks per week (by genetic risk) was linked to a 15% higher dementia risk. Doubling the genetic propensity for alcohol dependence was tied to a 16% increased risk. In short, more drinking (genetically indicated) = more risk, in a roughly linear fashion.

One particularly telling insight: many individuals who were later diagnosed with dementia had gradually reduced their alcohol consumption in the years before diagnosis. That suggests that early (preclinical) brain changes might lead people to cut back a phenomenon called reverse causation. If so, earlier observational studies that found benefits from light drinking may have been capturing that effect, rather than a true benefit of alcohol.

The authors do note limitations: the strongest associations came from those of European ancestry (because of sample sizes), and Mendelian randomization depends on certain assumptions that cant be fully tested. Nonetheless, they conclude that their findings oppose the idea of a safe or beneficial low dose of alcohol for brain health and argue that reducing alcohol intake could be a meaningful strategy for dementia prevention.

Our findings highlight the importance of considering reverse causation and residual confounding in studies of alcohol and dementia, and they suggest that reducing alcohol consumption may be an important strategy for dementia prevention, the team wrote.

New research suggests fruit intake might lessen pollutions hit on lung strength

• In a large U.K.-based study, people who ate more fruit showed smaller declines in lung function linked to air pollution.

• The study compared fine particulate exposure (PM.) with lung capacity (FEV), adjusting for age, height, income, and more.

• The protective signal was strongest in women: high fruit consumers lost less lung volume per pollution increment than low fruit consumers.

We all know that polluted air can be bad news for our lungs. But what if something as simple as eating more fruit could provide a bit of a shield?

Thats the provocative idea behind new research presented at the European Respiratory Society Congress. The study explores whether a healthy diet especially fruit intake might soften the negative impact of fine-particle air pollution (PM.) on lung function.

Over 90% of the global population is exposed to air pollution levels that exceed World Health Organization guidelines, and ample research shows that exposure to higher air pollution levels is associated with reduced lung function, researcher Pimpika Kaewsri said in a news release.

Separately, a healthy diet particularly one high in fruits and vegetables has been linked to better lung function. We wanted to explore whether a healthy diet or specific food groups could modify or partly mitigate the known adverse effects of air pollution on lung function.

The study

To dig into this question, the researchers tapped into U.K. Biobank data, drawing on around 200,000 participants with available information on diet, lung function, and modeled air pollution exposure.

They looked at participants reported fruit, vegetable, and whole-grain intake, then compared that with their lung function measured as FEV essentially how much air one can forcibly exhale in one second.

The key pollutant considered was PM., tiny particles 2.5 micrometers or smaller, known to pose risks in urban and industrial settings.

Importantly, their statistical models did more than just compare apples to apples. They adjusted for factors like age, height, socioeconomic status, and other lifestyle elements to better isolate the role of diet.

One caveat: this is a cross-sectional (snapshot) analysis meaning it looks at associations at one point in time, not changes over years. Experts caution that this limits claims about cause and effect.

The results: What they found

Heres where things get interesting: for every increase of 5 g/m in PM. exposure, women in the low fruit intake group showed a drop of about 78.1 mL in FEV, whereas high fruit consumers saw a smaller drop of 57.5 mL.

The researchers interpreted this as a possible buffering effect of fruit perhaps thanks to antioxidants and anti-inflammatory compounds that help combat oxidative stress from pollutants.

However and this is important the signal was more apparent in women, who tended to report higher fruit intake than men in this sample. The study authors are cautious: they dont claim fruit prevents pollution damage, only that it may be associated with less decline in lung function in certain groups.

Our study confirmed that a healthy diet is linked to better lung function in both men and women regardless of air pollution exposure, Kaewsri said. And that women who consumed four portions of fruit per day or more appeared to have smaller reductions in lung function associated with air pollution, compared to those who consumed less fruit.

This may be partly explained by the antioxidant and anti-inflammation compounds naturally present in fruit. These compounds could help mitigate oxidative stress and inflammation caused by fine particles, potentially offsetting some of the harmful effects of air pollution on lung function.

Implications for You: Small Changes, Possible Big Payoff

While this study doesnt prove that fruit protects your lungs from pollution, it does add to growing evidence that diet can influence how your body responds to environmental stress. Heres what that could mean for you:

• Add more fruit variety: The researchers didnt single out any one type of fruit so aim for a mix. Citrus fruits, berries, and apples are all rich in antioxidants that may help counter oxidative damage caused by air pollutants.

• Think add, not replace: The benefits seem to come from eating more fruit overall, not just swapping out other foods. Try adding fruit to breakfast, snacks, or even savory dishes.

• Diet isnt a substitute for clean air: No amount of healthy eating can fully offset the harms of pollution reducing exposure remains key. But eating nutrient-dense foods may offer an extra layer of support for your lungs and overall health.

Finding stability in uncertain times

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• Prioritize essentials focus spending on housing, food, healthcare, and utilities first.

• Trim the extras pause subscriptions, dining out, and impulse purchases.

• Seek temporary relief apply for unemployment benefits, defer loans, and explore assistance programs.

Federal workers are not the only employees getting pink slips. When businesses downsize or close, people suddenly find themselves out of work.

A layoff can be emotionally and financially jarring, but it doesnt have to derail your future. Personal finance experts say the key to weathering this period is focusing on control and that begins with your budget. Whether your job loss was expected or sudden, reassessing your finances immediately helps you stretch every dollar until your next opportunity.

1. Create a 'bare-bones'budget

Start by identifying your non-negotiables: rent or mortgage, utilities, groceries, insurance, and medication. Everything else from streaming services to gym memberships should be paused or canceled. List all monthly expenses and categorize them as needs or wants. This exercise often reveals how much you can cut without sacrificing essentials.

If you havent already, use a budgeting app or spreadsheet to visualize your cash flow. Seeing exactly where your money goes each month gives you clarity and control.

2. Reduce big costs before the small ones

Some expenses make a larger impact than others. Call your landlord or lender to ask about temporary rent or mortgage relief. Contact your utility companies about hardship programs. Auto insurers and phone carriers often have payment pause options for customers in transition.

Downsizing whether that means moving in with family or subletting part of your space can dramatically extend your savings. Its not forever, but it can buy you valuable time.

3. Tap into assistance and benefits

Apply for unemployment benefits as soon as possible many states have waiting periods, and the sooner you apply, the sooner relief arrives. Explore government and nonprofit programs for food assistance (like SNAP), healthcare coverage, and job retraining.

If you received a severance package, resist the urge to treat it like a windfall. Divide it across your monthly expenses to cover essentials for as long as possible.

4. Earn while you search

Consider short-term or freelance work while job hunting. Gig platforms, remote contract jobs, and part-time roles can keep money flowing and fill resume gaps. Even temporary work can help you maintain financial momentum and confidence.

5. Protect your mental and financial health

Financial stress takes a toll on emotional well-being. Seek free or low-cost counseling through community programs or telehealth services. Staying connected to friends and peers can also provide emotional support and potential job leads.

Economist finds 22 states are in, or close to a recession

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• According to a recent analysis by Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moodys Analytics, 22 U.S. states are now either in recession or very close to entering one together representing nearly one-third of national GDP.

• Another 13 states are categorized as treading water, showing stagnation rather than clear growth or contraction.

• Zandis framework uses a composite index drawing on employment data, modeled industrial output, personal income, and housing starts at the state level scoring states as recession, treading water, or expanding.

The latest quarterly Gross Domestic Product report shows that the economy is growing, albeit slightly. But that growth may not be uniform across the country, according to Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moodys Analytics.

In a post on X, Zandi warns that the U.S. economy is not uniformly healthy many states are already showing signs of contraction or extreme fragility. His state-level index suggests that weakness is concentrated especially in regions with heavy exposure to manufacturing, agriculture, and trade-sensitive sectors.

Based on my assessment of various data, states making up nearly a third of U.S. GDP are either in or at high risk of recession, another third are just holding steady, and the remaining third are growing, Zandi wrote.

Zandi emphasizes that while the national economy is not officially in recession, the current conditions leave it uncomfortably close to tipping over.

Key patterns and vulnerabilities

• States heavily reliant on manufacturing or agribusiness are disproportionately represented in the recession/at-risk category, reflecting sensitivity to tariffs, supply-chain friction, and weak export demand.

• The Washington, D.C.MarylandVirginia (DMV) region is flagged as a particular trouble spot deep cuts in federal employment are adding strain to already weak regional performance. (

• Some big-economy states namely California and New York are classified as treading water. Their stability is seen as pivotal: if they slip into contraction, the national momentum could falter.

Caveats and policy outlook

Zandi cautions that his designation of recession vs. treading water is inherently judgmental state economies lack the clean, consistent indicators used for national recession dating. He also notes that his index is not predictive but offers a snapshot based on coincident measures.

In his view, current U.S. policy carries several headwinds: persistent tariffs, reduced immigration (which constrains labor supply), and federal job cuts. These factors, combined with weakening consumer demand and sluggish capital investment, could push more states into recession in the near term.

If national momentum falters, the pressure on the Federal Reserve and Congress will heighten but Zandi argues that monetary policy alone may not be sufficient to counter structural and policy-driven drags.

What to watch next

• Whether California or New York show signs of contraction a slip in either could undermine national growth

• The next state employment and industrial data releases, looking for broad job decline or deepening weakness

• Responses from state governments and Congress, particularly whether fiscal stimulus or policy shifts emerge to shore up weaker states

• How the Federal Reserve interprets signals of regional distress amid its inflation-control mission

Though a nationwide recession has not yet been declared, Zandis analysis suggests that many states are already feeling the pain and the threshold for tipping into a broad downturn appears thin.