Experts Matter. Find Yours.

The Truth About “Negative-Calorie” Cucumbers

As summer temperatures climb, so does interest in cucumbers — crunchy, hydrating, and long rumored to be a “negative-calorie food” that burns more energy to digest than it provides. It's a claim that circulates every year in diet culture, but it isn't true. The New York Times recently set out to separate the nutrition science from the myth, and turned to registered dietitians for a clear-eyed answer. Dr. Gina Jarman Hill is a Professor and Chair of the Department of Nutritional Sciences at Texas Christian University. A Registered and Licensed Dietitian, she has worked as a clinical and consultant dietitian and is a member of the Hunger and Environmental Nutrition (HEN) and Dietitians in Integrative and Functional Medicine dietetic practice groups. Her teaching and research center on food and sustainability, nutrition ecology, community nutrition, and public health — with particular expertise in food security, urban agriculture, and hunger. She earned her BS, MS, and PhD in Food and Nutrition from Texas Tech University and was named the Texas Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics' Outstanding Nutrition Educator in 2017. Dr. Hill was recently featured in The New York Times article “How Healthy Are Cucumbers?” by Amanda Schupak (July 13, 2026), which examines what cucumbers do — and don't — offer nutritionally. Read the full article here. A 10.5-ounce unpeeled garden cucumber, for instance, contains just over one cup of water and 45 calories. Gina Jarman Hill, a professor of nutritional sciences at Texas Christian University, said there is a common misconception that cucumbers are “negative-calorie foods” — meaning they contain fewer calories than it takes to burn digesting them. “There’s no such thing as a ‘negative-calorie food,’” she said, but because the number of calories in cucumbers is so low, they’re about as close as you will get to one. As long as you’re mindful of what you pair them with, Dr. Hill said, there is no reason to curb your cucumber consumption. Dr. Hill is available to speak with media on nutrition myths, food security, sustainable and urban agriculture, community nutrition education, and healthy eating on a budget — timely topics as outlets continue to cover diet trends, food waste, and seasonal eating. To arrange an interview or request a comment, click through to Dr. Hill's profile below.

There's No Such Thing as the Average Canadian Retiree. There Are Three.

You've seen the photo. Silver-haired couple on a sailboat, or walking on a beach at golden hour, laughing about nothing in particular. It's on the cover of every retirement brochure ever printed. It's what "the average Canadian retiree" looks like. In thirty years of banking, I never met that couple. I met a widow in her seventies deciding between a dental crown and her property taxes. I met a couple in their sixties quietly draining their RRSPs to keep a grandchild in university. And yes, I met people with sailboats, though they weren't asking me about retirement income. They were asking about estate freezes and charitable foundations. Three conversations. Three completely different Canadians. And after three decades of having them, most recently as a vice president at one of Canada's Schedule I banks, I've come to believe our biggest retirement problem isn't that Canadians plan badly. It's that we keep designing for an "average retiree" who doesn't exist. In The Canadian Retirement Evolution, a report newly published by EY that I was proud to co-author, I make the case for seeing Canadian retirees as three distinct groups. 1) Retirees in Need (roughly 30%) Nearly one-third of Canadian retirees are living close to the edge. Limited pension income, modest personal savings, and rising living costs define their retirement. Adding to the pressure, retirement debt is becoming the new reality. According to Royal LePage, 29% of Canadians who are recently retired or approaching retirement expect to continue making mortgage payments on their primary residence. For many Canadians, debt has become a permanent companion, extending well into what should be their most financially secure years. Perhaps the most troubling reality is this. Most people in this group have never received professional financial advice. The Canadians who need planning the most are often the Canadians the financial planning industry reaches the least. That should concern every financial institution, advisor and policymaker in this country. When retirement arrives with too little income, too much debt and no plan, the result is not just financial stress. It is anxiety, reduced independence and difficult choices that no Canadian should have to make after a lifetime of work. 2) Retirees Seeking Stability (roughly 60%) This is the majority of Canadian retirees, and the group that the sailboat photo completely misses. They are not financially struggling, but neither are they financially free. They have enough to retire, but not enough to stop worrying. What they want is simple. They want to maintain the lifestyle they spent forty years building. They want confidence that their money will last as long as they do. They want a retirement plan that offers stability and predictability. And they want the freedom to help the people they love, whether that's contributing to a grandchild's education, helping with a first home, or lending a hand when life throws one of their children an unexpected curveball. That is where retirement becomes complicated. Retirement has changed dramatically over the past three decades, but much of the advice Canadians receive has not. The result is a growing gap between today's retirement realities and yesterday's retirement plans. Every dollar shared with family is one less dollar available to fund their own future. Every unexpected expense raises the same unsettling question: Will I still have enough? This group lives in the space between abundance and anxiety. They have assets, but not always confidence. They have choices, but every choice comes with trade-offs. They don't need a miracle. They need a plan that provides stability, predictability, and the confidence to enjoy the retirement they worked so hard to earn without constantly wondering if today's decisions will become tomorrow's regrets. 3) Affluent Retirees (roughly 10%) The remaining ten percent focuses on sophisticated wealth management: transferring wealth to the next generation, structuring estates to minimize taxes, and giving philanthropically. These are good problems to have, served by an entire industry built to solve them. And that's the uncomfortable truth hiding in the framework: most of our retirement advice, most of our products, and most of our planning tools were designed with this group in mind. Retirement Fear Has a Name In 1990, more than 70% of Canadian workplace pension plans were defined benefit plans, providing predictable, guaranteed lifetime income. By 2022, that figure had fallen to just 37%. In the span of a single working generation, we quietly shifted the risk of outliving retirement savings from institutions to individuals. The anxiety created by that shift is something I encountered in thousands of conversations with Canadians throughout my lending career, long before I had a name for it. I call it FORO, the Fear of Running Out. In the EY report, we describe it this way: "Fear of running out (FORO) reflects a structural gap in retirement system design, not a failure of individual planning. Most retirement frameworks were built for accumulation rather than sustainable income in later life." That is the heart of the challenge. Canada's retirement system does an excellent job of helping people save, but far less to help them transform those savings into sustainable, predictable income throughout retirement. It is little wonder that so many Canadians approach retirement with uncertainty rather than confidence. The Elephant in the Living Room One final reality deserves far more attention. Canada is in the midst of one of the largest intergenerational wealth transfers in its history. Much of that wealth is tied up in residential real estate, owned by Canadians who consistently say they want to remain in their homes for as long as possible. That creates an important contradiction. The largest asset held by most Canadian households is also one of the least integrated into mainstream retirement planning. We encourage Canadians to build home equity for decades, then often ignore it when they need income the most. If retirement planning is meant to consider every available resource, why do we continue to overlook the largest one? Resolving that question has become the focus of my research and my forthcoming book, Your Retirement Reset: How to Convert Home Equity into Financial Security (ECW Press, September 2026). But that discussion extends beyond the scope of this article. For now, it is enough to recognize the disconnect. Retirement has changed. Canadians' balance sheets have changed. It may be time for retirement planning to change as well. A Retirement System Designed for Everyone The EY report reminds us that retirement is more than a financial milestone. It is one of life's most significant transitions, and every Canadian deserves to approach it with confidence, dignity and choice. That outcome will not be achieved with a retirement system designed around a single, hypothetical retiree. Canadians retire with different financial realities, different goals and different challenges. A retirement system that recognizes only one path will continue to leave too many people behind. Designing for the three retirement realities outlined in this paper is not simply good policy. It is good business. Financial institutions that tailor products, advice and education to meet the needs of all three groups will be better positioned to serve Canada's fastest-growing demographic. Policymakers who encourage that evolution will help create a retirement system that reflects the way Canadians actually live today, not the way they lived thirty years ago. The question is no longer whether retirement has changed. It has. The question is whether our retirement system will evolve quickly enough to meet Canadians where they are. Don't Retire... Re-Wire! Sue

Op-Ed: Crypto market bill adds risk, not clarity

Markets function best when participants understand the rules of the road, investors have confidence in the integrity of the system, and regulators have clear authority to police misconduct. The crypto market structure legislation now advancing in Congress promises exactly this clarity. Yet it raises a more troubling question: what happens when legislation written to create clarity instead exempts large parts of the digital asset ecosystem from the very safeguards that make markets safe for everyday Americans? Blockchain technology, tokenization, stablecoins and digital assets can improve efficiency, lower transaction costs, and widen access to financial products. Those opportunities are real. But sustainable innovation requires trust, and trust requires accountability. The legislation under consideration would create broad carve-outs for parts of the digital asset ecosystem, particularly within decentralized finance. Supporters call these provisions pro-innovation. Economically, they are regulatory arbitrage–the practice of avoiding rules and requirements that apply to similar financial activities elsewhere. Regulatory arbitrage does not create better products or services. Instead, it allows some firms to operate with lower costs by avoiding obligations designed to protect consumers and maintain financial stability. When two companies provide the same financial service but follow different sets of rules, the company with fewer requirements will naturally have lower costs. Those savings are not necessarily the result of greater efficiency. They often come from avoiding safeguards that other firms are required to maintain. Consider what the exemptions waive. A bank that holds customer assets must keep those assets separate from their own funds, maintain capital reserves, and fund a supervisory and compliance apparatus. An exempt digital platform performing the same custodial function carries none of these costs, so it can offer the service more cheaply while taking on risks that may not become apparent until problems arise. A bank that pays a return on deposits also pays deposit insurance premiums, holds regulatory capital, and absorbs the cost of anti-money-laundering compliance. An exempt platform passing through the yield on its reserves bears none of these and can therefore advertise a higher net rate on funds that are, economically, deposits. The activity is the same on both sides of the ledger. Only the rulebook differs, and the rulebook is the cost. This asymmetry falls hardest on community banks. Their deposits are the raw material of local lending. When an exempt platform can out-price them on stablecoin yield without carrying the costs that yield is meant to cover, deposits migrate, funding costs rise, and lending capacity contracts. As a result, community banks have less money available to lend, which can make it harder for small businesses to access credit. Community banks are responsible for roughly 60% of small-business loans and 80% of agricultural lending nationwide[1]. In Louisiana, where local banks finance small businesses and family farms, that risk is especially acute. The lesson is straightforward: when economically similar activities–like stablecoin yield and interest payments–operate under very different rules, risk often becomes harder to see until it's too late. History shows where this leads. Before the 2008 crisis, mortgage-related risk migrated out of regulated banks and into the “shadow banking” system–financial entities and investment vehicles that operated with less oversight. Those markets looked innovative and efficient. But because transparency and accountability were weaker, risk accumulated out of sight until it threatened the entire system. The lesson is not that the instruments were novel. It is that economically similar activities were governed by different rules, and risk flowed to the corner where it was hardest to see. The same logic applies to investors. Markets succeed only when participants trust them, which is why registration requirements promote transparency, best-execution standards help ensure fair treatment, and anti-money-laundering tools deter illicit activity. The legislation would let certain digital asset developers operate outside many of these protections. Technology can change how an asset is recorded or transferred. It does not change the risks an investor bears, or the incentives a firm faces when no one is watching. The United States does need a durable framework for digital assets, and regulatory uncertainty serves no one. Entrepreneurs need predictable rules, investors need confidence, and markets need consistency. But a framework built on exemptions delivers none of these. It delivers a two-tier market in which the regulated bear the costs and the exempt reap the advantages, until the risks they shed reassemble somewhere less visible. The most durable financial innovations in American history emerged within systems that paired opportunity with accountability. Digital assets should be no exception. Congress should reject this legislation and pursue a framework that applies the same rules to the same activities. Innovation matters. Trust is what makes it last.

How Wildfires Impact Vulnerable Communities, Pets and Public Health Systems

Wildfires burning across the world, now in parts of France and Spain, are forcing hundreds of thousands of people to evacuate. University of Delaware experts are available to discuss wildfire evacuations, vulnerable communities, animal rescue and the health effects of wildfire smoke exposure. Those experts, from UD’s Disaster Research Center, include: Sarah DeYoung Professor of sociology and criminal justice: • How people are forced to make split-second decisions involving horses, livestock and companion animals during fast-moving wildfires. • Why some owners must turn animals loose when evacuation time is limited. • Lessons from past disasters and animal rescue research. Jennifer Trivedi Assistant professor of anthropology: • The unique challenges faced by vulnerable populations during wildfires. • Complications surrounding evacuation decision-making and evacuation needs. • Long-term recovery following catastrophic disasters. Jennifer Horney Chair of UD’s Department of Epidemiology: • Health risks associated with wildfire smoke exposure, including respiratory infections. • How wildfire smoke and airborne pollutants affect population health. • The strain major wildfires can place on public health and health care systems. To arrange an interview with these experts, visit their profile page and click on the "contact" button. Interested journalists can also send an email to MediaRelations@udel.edu.

Deaths, resignations in Congress test narrow majority

United Press International (UPI wire service) interviewed Meena Bose, Hofstra University professor of political science, executive dean of the Public Policy and Public Service program, the Kalikow Chair in Presidential Studies and director of the Kalikow Center for the Study of the American Presidency, about the death of Senator Lindsey Graham and President Donald Trump‘s choice of the late Senator’s sister Darline Graham Nordone, to succeed him. Until the midterm elections, Nordone will hold that position in an honorary capacity. There are four active vacancies on Capitol Hill with Nordone filling Graham’s seat. “The issue here is really that there have been vacancies and resignations and that the margin is so narrow for party control, particularly in the House of Representatives,” Dr. Bose told UPI. “The number of resignations or decisions not to run for re-election is indicative of questions about why people want to serve in office or indicative of a question of are people hesitant to serve in public office, and if so, why?”

MEDIA RELEASE: CAA survey finds 96 per cent of Ontario drivers have witnessed dangerous driving behaviours on Ontario roads

Nearly every Ontario driver has witnessed dangerous driving in the past year, yet many do not believe they contribute to the problem, according to a new survey from CAA South Central Ontario (CAA SCO). The survey found that 96 per cent of Ontario drivers have observed dangerous driving behaviours, including speeding (78 per cent), aggressive driving (69 per cent), unsafe lane changes (68 per cent) and distracted driving (67 per cent). However, only 57 per cent admit to engaging in at least one dangerous driving behaviour, revealing a disconnect between what drivers see on the road and how they assess their own actions. This number rises to 62 per cent among drivers aged 18 to 34. Most Drivers See Dangerous Behaviour, Fewer Admit to It “Most Ontario drivers can identify dangerous behaviours when they see them, but many don't realize they may be contributing to the problem themselves,” says Michael Stewart, community relations consultant, CAA South Central Ontario. “The good news is that small changes in driver behaviour can make a big difference. By slowing down, staying focused and making safe choices behind the wheel, we can help create safer roads for everyone.” Speeding remains the most common dangerous driving behaviour reported by Ontario drivers. More than one-third (38 per cent) admit to speeding, with more than half of those drivers say they typically travel 10 to 19 km/h above the speed limit. Even small increases in speed can significantly increase the likelihood and severity of collisions. Many drivers may not realize that fines increase depending on how far over the speed limit they are travelling and can be doubled in community safety zones. Encouragingly, most Ontarians say they slow down when they realize they are speeding, suggesting awareness and education can play an important role in changing behaviour. According to the data, 87 per cent of drivers also support the fines and penalties for speeding, and 37 per cent claim that penalties and fines affected their driving behaviour in the past year. Distracted Driving Also Remains a Serious Concern Across the Province A separate survey conducted by CAA SCO found that 16 per cent of Ontario drivers have been involved in a collision caused by distracted driving, a figure that has gradually increased in recent years. Rear-end collisions remain the most common type of crash associated with distraction, according to this study. “Distracted driving is preventable, yet it continues to put lives at risk every day,” says Stewart. “Whether it’s checking a notification, interacting with in-vehicle technology or taking your eyes off the road for a few seconds, the consequences can be devastating. The safest choice is to stay focused on driving.” As Ontarians prepare for the upcoming long weekend, CAA South Central Ontario is encouraging drivers to stay focused, alert and aware behind the wheel. For more information about road safety advocacy and research, visit www.caasco.com/advocacy Speeding and Dangerous Driving Behaviour Survey Methodology: The online survey was conducted by DIG Insights from March 10 to March 20, 2026, with 1,504 Ontario drivers aged 18 and older. Based on the sample size of n=1,504 and with a confidence level of 95 per cent, the margin of error for this research is +/- 2%.) Distracted Driving Survey Methodology:  The online survey was conducted by DIG Insights from February 3 to February 13, 2026, with 1,500 Ontario drivers aged 18 and older. Based on the sample size of n=1,500 and with a confidence level of 95 per cent, the margin of error for this research is +/- 2%.)

Fewer Essays, Fiercer Odds: The New College Application Math

A growing number of top colleges — including Tulane, Washington University in St. Louis, and UNC Chapel Hill — are trimming or eliminating supplemental essays, citing student stress and the rise of AI-assisted writing that makes it harder to tell who actually wrote an application. But the shift comes with a catch: fewer barriers to applying tend to mean more applications and lower admit rates. The Wall Street Journal explored the trend, and pointed to Texas Christian University as a case study already living the tradeoff. Heath Einstein is Vice Provost for Enrollment at Texas Christian University, now in his 13th year at TCU after previously serving as dean of admission and director of freshman admission. With more than two decades in admission and college counseling, he is a frequent speaker at national conferences and a voting delegate to the National Association for College Admission Counseling's Assembly, the governing body that sets national admissions-practice standards. He has chaired Texas ACAC's Government Relations and Advancement committees, received the association's Founders' Award, and served as Board Chair of ACCEPT: Admissions Community Cultivating Equity and Peace Today. His expertise spans cultural humility, shared governance, crisis management, staff development, and data analytics.  Einstein was recently featured in The Wall Street Journal article “Colleges Juice Application Numbers by Letting Students Write Fewer Essays” by Roshan Fernandez (July 10, 2026), which examines how cutting supplemental essays is reshaping admissions strategy nationally. “TCU said responses to the questions it cut—about its values and inclusivity—lacked originality. ‘You still see a narrowing to the mean,’ said Heath Einstein, vice provost of enrollment management. ‘Students are still going to respond in ways that they think we want to hear.’ Einstein said the school's aim in expanding application numbers is simply to increase enrollment, not lower its admit rate.” Einstein is available to speak with media on college admissions strategy, the impact of AI on application review, supplemental essays and holistic review, enrollment management, and higher-education leadership through crisis and change — all live issues as the 2026-27 application cycle takes shape. To arrange an interview or request a comment, click through to Heath Einstein's profile below.

Canadian Retirement Expert Susan Pimento Co-Authors Newly Released EY Report on the Future of Retirement in Canada

Former bank executive and Retire with Equity founder says "fear of running out" reflects a structural gap in retirement system design — not a failure of individual planning TORONTO, ON — July 23, 2026 — Susan Pimento, founder of Retire with Equity, is a co-author to The Canadian retirement evolution: Why financial institutions and policymakers must rethink retirement, a new report published today by EY examining how Canada's retirement landscape is changing — and why the systems built to support retirees are struggling to keep pace. The report arrives amid a structural shift in how Canadians fund retirement: in 1990, over 70 percent of Canadian workplace pension plans were defined-benefit schemes providing predictable lifelong income; by 2022, that figure had fallen to 37 percent — shifting investment risk, and the fear of running out onto individuals. Drawing on more than 30 years of senior leadership in Canadian banking and frontline lending, including serving as Vice President at a Schedule I bank, Pimento contributed a framework that groups Canadian retirees into three primary categories, each with distinct financial circumstances and priorities — a lens designed to help financial institutions and policymakers move beyond one-size-fits-all retirement planning. Sue Pimento is also the author of the forthcoming Your Retirement Reset: How to Convert Home Equity into Financial Security (ECW Press, to be released September 2026), "Fear of running out — FORO — reflects a structural gap in retirement system design, not a failure of individual planning," said Pimento. "Most retirement frameworks were built for accumulation rather than sustainable income in later life. Canadians aren't failing their retirement plans. In many cases, the plans were never designed for the retirement they're actually living." Pimento's contribution reflects the research focus of Retire with Equity, which provides retirement intelligence to Canada's financial sector on its fastest-growing and wealthiest demographic: adults 55 and over. Her forthcoming book examines how home equity — the largest asset most Canadian households hold — can be strategically converted into retirement income, and argues it belongs in every retirement conversation and product roadmap. "The industry has spent decades perfecting how Canadians save," Pimento added. "The next decade will be judged on how well we help them spend — sustainably, confidently, and without fear." The EY Report: "Canadian Retirement Evolution" is publicly available at: https://www.ey.com/en_ca/insights/financial-services/canadas-retirement-evolution Media availability: Susan Pimento is available for interviews and commentary on: retirement income design the three categories of Canadian retirees financial strategies for aging in place Intergenerational financial conversations about money (between seniors and their adult children) home equity strategies new ways for government and banks to serve the 55+ demographic About Susan Pimento Susan Pimento brings deep experience to the conversation on modern retirement strategies in Canada. With over 30 years of senior leadership in banking and frontline lending — including serving as Vice President at a Schedule I bank — she now advises financial institutions and policymakers on how to modernize retirement solutions and engage Canada's fastest-growing, wealthiest demographic: adults 55+. She is the founder of Retire with Equity and author of Your Retirement Reset: How to Convert Home Equity into Financial Security (ECW Press, September 2026). . Media Contact: Susan Pimento Website: www.retirewithequity.ca Email: sue@retirewithequity.ca