Helena Bottemiller writes daily for Food Safety News and can be found on Twitter @hbottemiller. She is my favorite guide to the Kafka-esque ins and outs of US food policy, managing to write stories about federal oversight and judicial wrangling that not only make sense of how our food system is shaped at the government level, but are actually interesting to read too. I invited her to share what food writing means to her as part of Food for Thinkers week back in January, but a back injury (and subsequent heavy doses of morphine) put her out of action. Now she’s back up on her feet, and I’m thrilled to be able to post her belated contribution!


My friends joke that I can find the food regulatory politics angle in any news story. This may sound wildly geeky, and admittedly it is, but I can’t help that food is everywhere.

Though I cover what most would consider a very narrow beat—primarily focusing on the cross-section of food safety and politics—I’ve gotten to dive into a surprising variety of stories.

In the past year, the beat has taken me to the Louisiana coast during the oil spill to explore the impact on seafood safety, to the Supreme Court to hear the first oral argument about a genetically-engineered crop, to the leafy greens fields of Yuma, Arizona, to figure out how E. coli O145 could have contaminated lettuce, and the heartland of Iowa in the wake of a half-billion egg recall.

I’ve been able to cover the First Lady Michelle Obama’s high-profile food policy initiatives, including an historic child nutrition bill and a couple picture-perfect White House Kitchen Garden Harvests, and (exhaustively) chronicle the debate over the most sweeping update to U.S. food safety law in over seven decades. (Who knew covering the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act would include hanging with Amish farmers, Ron Paul and superstar farmer Joel Salatin, of Food Inc. and Omnivore’s Dilemma, as they railed against government regulation and served raw milk to Senate staffers?)

For the GOOD Food Hub’s inaugural blog week, Food Editor Nicola Twilley posed the question: “What does it mean to write about food today?” In many ways, the unbelievably diverse response GOOD got from more than 50 bloggers speaks for itself. Prison food writers, the cuisine of sputnik, and a harrowing tale of panic in aisle five stretched my imagination. Food writing, it seems, can be as complex as the food system itself.

As I see it, the conversation about the who, what, why, when, and where of our food system continues to move into the mainstream and food writing must evolve with it.

For too long, the business and policy wonkery of food and agriculture and the foodie-filled culinary realms have remained largely separate beats. As Civil Eats‘ Paula Crossfield explains in her Food for Thinkers post, the audience for food and agriculture reporting is rapidly changing: “Rather than being a mostly rural farm population, readers are eaters, mom and dads, policy wonks of all stripes—and they are shifting the focus of the beat.”

So, what’s my take on what it should mean to write about food today? (Aside from always remembering you can’t write about food without agriculture).

For Eddie Gehman Kohan of Obama Foodorama, it means analyzing the politics of menus and food initiatives at the White House. For Philip Brasher of the Des Moines Register, it means dishing the scoop on agricultural politics that will impact Iowa (and all of us). For April Fulton of NPR, it means spelling out the implications of beltway-concocted food policy for a broad, often non-foodie audience.

In my own food safety niche, which I cover from the wild world of Washington, D.C., it means sitting in on oftentimes super boring (and sometimes blockbuster-worthy) congressional hearings, reading Government Accountability Office and Office of the Inspector General reports on import oversight or the USDA’s meat residue program—neither of which are getting a passing grade, in case you were wondering. It means incessantly bugging members of Congress, industry stakeholders, and consumer advocates for comments on policy news and pressing USDA, FDA, and CDC officials for updates during major foodborne illness outbreaks and recalls. It means filtering through truckloads of press releases, Google alerts, and tweets to keep a pulse on the conversation beyond D.C.

But at the end of the day, for each of us, food writing means taking fascinating, incredibly complex issues and synthesizing them into something everyone can eat. In a way, you can see what I do as pre-digestion: breaking down and processing all of the minutiae into writing that’s useful for eaters, mom and dads, and policy wonks of all stripes.

Images: all photos by Helena Bottemiller; (1) Egg company executives being sworn in to give testimony (the gentleman on the right plead the Fifth, apparently); (2) Rep. Rosa deLauro, former chair of the committee that oversees the FDA and USDA budgets; (3) Preparing green beans for a White House State Dinner.

  • What a roommate can save you in 100 US cities: 2026 study
    Two persons petting a cat while unpacking boxes in their new room.

    Jaclyn DeJohn, CFP for SmartAsset

    What a roommate can save you in 100 US cities: 2026 study

    New college grads, transplants from other cities, and others might find myriad advantages in including a roommate in their housing plan — one of those being cost savings. Particularly in high cost-of-living areas, an extra cushion in the budget could make a big difference in discretionary spending, paying off debt, or investing for the future. Across large U.S. cities, splitting a two-bedroom apartment with a roommate versus living alone in a one-bedroom apartment could save the average renter about $541 per month, or nearly $6,500 per year. In many cities, the average savings climb much higher.

    With this in mind, SmartAsset ranked 100 of the largest U.S. cities based on the percentage of monthly rent saved by sharing an apartment with a roommate.

    Key Findings

    • Adding a roommate gets you the best value in Cleveland, Ohio. Splitting a two-bedroom with another person saves you nearly 48% compared to renting a one-bedroom alone. The average cost of one-bedroom rent in Cleveland currently sits at $1,150, nearly identical to the average two-bedroom rent of $1,200.
    • The average rent for a two-bedroom apartment is only $900 in this city. Shreveport, Louisiana, has the lowest two-bedroom rent out of 100 large cities. With an average one-bedroom price of $790, it ranks 10th overall with a savings of 43% with a roommate, or $340 rent savings per person per month.
    • In NYC, a roommate saves you $1,730 per month. The average one-bedroom rent in New York City is $4,380, while two roommates could split the average $5,300 two-bedroom rent for $2,650 each. Neighboring Jersey City, New Jersey has the second-highest raw monthly dollars saved with a roommate at $1,490 — or 46.7% savings over living alone.
    • A roommate saves you the least in the cities. Relative to local housing costs, sharing your space is least cost effective in Scottsdale, Arizona, where splitting a two-bedroom nets you a 26.0% discount, or a $440 monthly discount. Seattle (28.2% savings; $550 per month) and El Paso, Texas (29.4% savings; $250 per month), also are most budget-friendly to singletons.
    A table ranking U.S. cities based on the saving benefits of having a roommate.

    Top 10 Cities With the Most Savings With a Roommate

    Cities are ranked based on the percent saved in rent between splitting the average two-bedroom apartment with a roommate and living in a one-bedroom apartment alone.

    1. Cleveland, OH
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 47.83%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $550
    • One-bedroom rent: $1,150
    • Two-bedroom rent: $1,200
    1. Baton Rouge, LA
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 46.88%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $450
    • One-bedroom rent: $960
    • Two-bedroom rent: $1,020
    1. Jersey City, NJ
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 46.71%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $1,490
    • One-bedroom rent: $3,190
    • Two-bedroom rent: $3,400
    1. Memphis, TN
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 46.24%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $430
    • One-bedroom rent: $930
    • Two-bedroom rent: $1,000
    1. Boise, ID
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 45.49%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $605
    • One-bedroom rent: $1,330
    • Two-bedroom rent: $1,450
    1. Augusta, GA
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 45.00%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $450
    • One-bedroom rent: $1,000
    • Two-bedroom rent: $1,100
    1. New Haven, CT
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 44.89%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $835
    • One-bedroom rent: $1,860
    • Two-bedroom rent: $2,050
    1. Chattanooga, TN
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 44.44%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $520
    • One-bedroom rent: $1,170
    • Two-bedroom rent: $1,300
    1. Virginia Beach, VA
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 43.94%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $725
    • One-bedroom rent: $1,650
    • Two-bedroom rent: $1,850
    1. Shreveport, LA
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 43.04%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $340
    • One-bedroom rent: $790
    • Two-bedroom rent: $900

    Top 10 Cities Where It’s Most Cost Effective to Live Alone

    Cities are ranked based on the percent saved in rent between splitting the average two-bedroom apartment with a roommate and living in a one-bedroom apartment alone.

    1. Scottsdale, AZ
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 26.04%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $440
    • One-bedroom rent: $1,690
    • Two-bedroom rent: $2,500
    1. Seattle, WA
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 28.21%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $550
    • One-bedroom rent: $1,950
    • Two-bedroom rent: $2,800
    1. El Paso, TX
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 29.41%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $250
    • One-bedroom rent: $850
    • Two-bedroom rent: $1,200
    1. Albuquerque, NM
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 29.47%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $280
    • One-bedroom rent: $950
    • Two-bedroom rent: $1,340
    1. Denver, CO
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 29.69%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $475
    • One-bedroom rent: $1,600
    • Two-bedroom rent: $2,250
    1. St Louis, MO
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 30.11%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $280
    • One-bedroom rent: $930
    • Two-bedroom rent: $1,300
    1. Dallas, TX
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 30.28%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $430
    • One-bedroom rent: $1,420
    • Two-bedroom rent: $1,980
    1. San Francisco, CA
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 30.47%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $1,155
    • One-bedroom rent: $3,790
    • Two-bedroom rent: $5,270
    1. Fort Lauderdale, FL
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 30.85%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $580
    • One-bedroom rent: $1,880
    • Two-bedroom rent: $2,600
    1. St Petersburg, FL
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 31.33%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $470
    • One-bedroom rent: $1,500
    • Two-bedroom rent: $2,060

    Data and Methodology

    This study examined data from 100 U.S. cities, comparing the average rents for one-bedroom and two-bedroom apartments between March 2025 and March 2026 based on data from Zumper. Specifically, the cost of a one-bedroom was compared with half the cost of a two-bedroom for each city, assuming each roommate pays equal rent.

    This story was produced by SmartAsset and reviewed and distributed by Stacker.

  • Parents trust report cards more than test scores, with consequences for kids
    A school report card showing straight A's.

    Jill Barshay for The Hechinger Report

    Parents trust report cards more than test scores, with consequences for kids

    Most parents want to help their children succeed. We check report cards, ask about homework and try to help our kids study. When that fails, we sometimes hire tutors. But in an era of rising grades, it’s easy to be misled.

    A new study reviewed by The Hechinger Report found that parents often assume everything is fine when their child’s report card shows mostly A’s, even when standardized test scores slide. That assumption may underestimate the help and guidance their child needs.

    In an online experiment, researchers at Oregon State University and the University of Chicago created hypothetical fifth graders, whom they called Stacey and Robert, and asked more than 2,000 parents how they would advise the children’s parents to respond to different scenarios of grades and test scores. Test scores were expressed as percentile ranks on standardized tests, such as the annual state tests that public school children take each spring, so that parents could compare Stacey and Robert with those of other children nationwide. And study participants were given an imaginary $100 per week to “spend” however they wished. Options included enrolling the child in an after-school program, hiring a tutor or saving the money for a vacation or bills. They could also invest their own time, such as helping with homework or reading together.

    Parents advised increasing time and money spent when both grades and test scores were low. Parents were less likely to provide extra help or resources when grades were high and only test scores were low. The researchers found that parents were more likely to step in when grades were low but test scores were higher.

    More than 70% of the parents said they trust grades more than tests for making decisions about their own child, and fewer than 9% said they had more confidence in tests.

    The findings appear in a draft paper that has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal and may still be revised. It was publicly circulated by the Becker Friedman Institute for Economics at the University of Chicago this month.

    As test scores have fallen nationwide while grades have risen, the researchers believe that parents may be underinvesting in their children. “Parents are the key to children’s success,” said Ariel Kalil of the University of Chicago. “What you need is for parents to be making investments in their kids’ skill development, and you need that parental effort to be happening early and often. Anything that depresses parent investment is a problem.”

    Kalil is concerned that this underinvestment in children is more pronounced in low-income communities, where, she said, high grades are often issued for below-grade-level skills. After the COVID-19 pandemic, schools struggled to persuade families to enroll in free tutoring and summer programs to make up for months of disrupted instruction. Many report cards showed solid grades, reducing the urgency for parents to act.

    Paired with other recent research on long-term academic and economic consequences, this study strengthens the case that grade inflation isn’t harmless. Inflated grades may feel encouraging, but they can send false signals both to students, who may study less, and to parents, who may see less reason to step in. Ultimately, it not only hurts individuals but also American labor force skills and future economic growth, the researchers argue.

    Kalil, a behavioral scientist, believes that parents have more confidence in grades because they are familiar and easier to understand. Meanwhile, score reports are complicated, and even many well-educated parents are confused about scaled scores and percentile rankings.

    A survey that accompanied the online experiment revealed that a sizable share of parents don’t trust standardized tests. Forty percent of the parents in the study said that tests were biased. Almost 30% thought student scores were a reflection of family income. Fewer than 20% of parents thought tests captured their children’s skills.

    Kalil says there’s another psychological phenomenon at play even for parents who understand and value standardized tests: the tendency to ignore bad news when it is paired with good news. “If the report card is all A’s, there’s a cognitive bias towards sticking your head in the sand and rejecting the bad information,” said Kalil.

    There were hints in the data that Hispanic families were most trusting of grades and least trusting of test scores, while Asian families were more willing to heed test results. But few Hispanic and Asian parents participated in the survey, so these patterns were not statistically significant. (Almost 70% of the respondents were white and 20% Black.) Parents with at least a bachelor’s degree also paid more attention to standardized exams.

    Solving the problem won’t be easy. The researchers say schools can do more to explain what test scores measure and how to interpret them, but better communication alone may not shift parents’ instincts. Reversing grade inflation would be the most direct solution, but that would require a broader shift across schools — something that is unlikely to happen quickly.

    In the meantime, the burden is on parents to read report cards with a critical eye. When grades and test scores don’t align, it’s worth asking why. A strong report card can be reassuring, but it may not always tell the full story of what a child knows — or what help they might need.

    This storywas produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education, and reviewed and distributed by Stacker.

  • Is baby talk bad? Why ‘parentese’ actually helps babies learn language
    Photo credit: MoMo Productions/DigitalVision via Getty ImagesEmphasizing the sounds of certain words to young children can help them retain language, not confuse them about speaking properly.

    Many parents have heard the warning: Don’t use baby talk with babies and toddlers. Instead, caregivers are often encouraged to speak properly and use adultlike language, out of concern that simplified speech could confuse children or delay language development.

    But my research, which I highlighted in in my new book, “Beyond Words,” suggests the opposite is true. The sing-song voice many adults instinctively use with infants, sometimes called “baby talk” but more accurately known as “parentese” or infant-directed speech, actually helps children learn language.

    Far from confusing babies, exaggerating phrases like “Loooook at the doggie!” capture their attention, help them detect patterns in speech and strengthen social bonding.

    And the funny mistakes children make along the way, such as saying “goed,” instead of “went,” or “mouses” instead of “mice,” are not signs that children are learning language incorrectly. They are evidence that children are actively working out the rules of language for themselves.

    A man holds his hands away from his face and leans over a small baby lying on a bed and smiles.
    Speaking ‘parentese’ to a child doesn’t involve nonsense words. BjelicaS/E+ via Getty Images

    What parentese really is

    When many people think of baby talk, they imagine nonsense phrases like “goo goo ga ga” or made-up words like “num nums.” But that’s not what linguists and developmental psychologists mean by parentese.

    Parentese uses real words and grammatically correct sentences, but with exaggerated intonation, a higher pitch, stretched-out vowels and a slower rhythm. Think of the way a caregiver might naturally say: “Hi, baaaaby! Are you huuungry?”

    There is little evidence that occasional playful nonsense words harm children’s language development. But studies suggest that parentese in particular helps babies pay attention to speech, recognize patterns and engage socially.

    Adults across cultures tend to speak this way to infants instinctively. Even people who swear they never use baby talk often slip into it around babies.

    Researchers have found that infants actually prefer listening to parentese over regular adult speech. The exaggerated sounds and slower pacing make language easier to process. Babies are better able to pick out individual sounds, notice word boundaries and recognize patterns. In other words, parentese helps tune babies into language.

    It also strengthens emotional connection. Language learning does not happen in isolation. Babies learn through warm, responsive interaction with caregivers during feeding, play, bath time and everyday routines.

    Interestingly, humans are not the only ones who respond to this style of communication. Studies have even shown that cats react more positively when people use a baby-talk voice with them.

    Babies are not passive learners

    Children do not learn language simply by copying adults word for word. They actively test hypotheses about how language works. That is why toddlers make predictable and surprisingly logical mistakes.

    One common example is overgeneralization. A child learns that people form the past tense of many verbs by adding “-ed,” so they produce forms like “goed,” “eated” or “comed.”

    These are not random errors. In fact, they show that the child has understood a grammatical rule and is trying to apply it consistently. The problem is simply that English is full of irregular exceptions. The same thing happens with plurals. Children may say “foots” instead of “feet” or “mouses” instead of “mice.” Again, the logic behind these errors is sound.

    Linguists sometimes say that children are little scientists, constantly testing patterns and revising their understanding as they receive more input from the world around them.

    Why toddlers call everything a ‘dog’

    Young children also make predictable mistakes with meaning.

    A toddler might learn the word “dog” and then use it for every four-legged animal they encounter. Linguists call this overextension. On the flip side, some children use words too narrowly. A child may use “dog” only for the family pet and not recognize that other dogs belong in the same category. Linguists call this tendency underextension.

    These mistakes reveal how children organize and categorize the world around them. They are gradually mapping words onto objects, people and experiences.

    Pronouns are another tricky area. Small children often confuse “me” and “you” because these words constantly shift depending on who is speaking. If a parent says, “I’ll pick you up,” the child hears themselves called “you.” But when they try to repeat the sentence, they may not yet understand that the labels switch from speaker to speaker.

    This is why toddlers sometimes say things that sound unintentionally cute or confusing. But beneath the confusion is a sophisticated learning process.

    Even the Cookie Monster gets it wrong

    Children’s speech errors are so recognizable that they often appear in popular culture. Sesame Street’s character Cookie Monster famously says things like “Me want cookie,” while Elmo often refers to himself in the third person: “Elmo wants this.” These speech patterns mirror real stages of child language development. Young children commonly confuse pronouns or refer to themselves by name before mastering forms like “I,” “me” and “mine.”

    Despite occasional complaints from adults, there is no evidence that hearing this kind of speech harms children’s language development. If anything, it reflects the natural experimentation children go through.

    A Cookie Monster puppet stands near a black tarp with its mouth open and holds a cookie.
    The Cookie Monster saying ‘Me want cookie’ won’t teach babies and young kids to speak incorrectly. Brian Killian/WireImage via Getty Images

    ‘Pasketti’ and ‘wabbit’

    Pronunciation develops gradually too. Young children often simplify difficult sounds and groups of consonants. “Spaghetti” becomes “pasketti,” “rabbit” becomes “wabbit” and “yellow” may come out as “lellow.”

    Speech-language specialists call these simplifications phonological processes. They are a normal part of development because some sounds are physically harder to produce than others. Sounds such as r, th, sh and ch tend to develop later because they require more precise control of the tongue and mouth.

    Most children naturally outgrow these pronunciation patterns as their speech matures. However, persistent difficulties can sometimes signal a speech or language disorder, which may require professional support.

    A graphic image shows a young child's head with various colorful thought bubbles inside.
    Children don’t learn language by copying adults word for word. They learn through interaction, experimentation and repetition. DrAfter123/DigitalVision Vectors via Getty Images

    Mistakes are part of learning

    Parents are often under enormous pressure to do everything right, including helping their children learn to speak a language. But children do not learn language by avoiding mistakes. They learn through interaction, experimentation and repetition.

    Parentese helps babies focus on speech and engage socially. The funny mistakes toddlers make reveal that they are actively piecing together the complex system of language and are often signs of normal development. Language acquisition is messy, creative and remarkably sophisticated.

    Speaking in an exaggerated sing-song voice to a baby is not something parents and caregivers need to feel embarrassed about.

    Far from harming language acquisition, it may help lay the foundation for it.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

Explore More Stories

Public Good

Spanish town shaded from punishing summer heat thanks to senior knitters and their colorful blankets

Health

People who dread working out are trying ‘micro walks,’ and the results feel great

Science

How does your brain decide between the road not taken or the same old route? Resolving conflicting memories is key to navigation

Health

Most people don’t know what they don’t know, but think they do – correcting your metaknowledge can make you a better teacher and learner