Category: The Conversation

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Selena E. Ortiz, Associate professor of Health Policy and Administration and Demography, Penn State

Pittsburgh is widely regarded as a relatively affordable place to live. Overall, housing and living costs remain below national averages for midsize cities in the United States.

Along with low home prices, Pittsburgh offers stable employment rates and close proximity to leading universities and high-quality hospitals.

However, data from a March 2026 survey shows that a single adult needs to earn about $95,000 to live comfortably in Pittsburgh. This is well above the city’s median household income of $67,000. A family of four needs nearly $239,000.

My peer‑reviewed work examines how housing affordability affects a community’s health. It also documents how well policy holds up over time in terms of affordable housing efforts.

Inclusionary zoning explained

Inclusionary zoning requires developers to reserve a portion of new housing units for lower-income residents at below-market rents. A city might require, for example, that a new residential complex reserve or set aside 10% of units for households that earn 80% or less of the area median income.

Also referred to as a “mandatory set-aside,” inclusionary zoning is often done in exchange for developer incentives, such as density bonuses, which allow developers to build additional units. Other incentives could be expedited permitting or relaxed parking minimums, allowing developers to build fewer parking spaces than normally required.

In 2025, Pittsburgh adopted the Affordable Housing Bonus Program, a largely voluntary, incentive-based policy that applies inclusionary zoning requirements only within designated overlay districts. An overlay district is an extra layer of rules that apply to a specific area on top of the neighborhood’s regular zoning rules – such as a special zone within a zone.

The goal is to encourage developers to include a percentage of affordable units within specific geographic areas, such as Lawrenceville, Bloomfield, Polish Hill and parts of Oakland. The Affordable Housing Bonus Program emerged after legal challenges and public opposition derailed inclusionary zoning citywide.

The Affordable Housing Bonus Program is now being tested by a University of Pittsburgh student housing project called The Caroline at University Commons. University Commons is situated in Pittsburgh’s Oakland neighborhood, an inclusionary zoning overlay district. However, the developer, Walnut Capital, is seeking to exempt the project from inclusionary zoning overlay requirements altogether. This would reduce the number of affordable units set aside from 16 to 0. Walnut Capital believes it’s exempt from inclusionary zoning because it meets all other bonus requirements.

Short on homes, split on solutions

The fragility of the Affordable Housing Bonus Program matters not only for the neighborhoods that it affects but for what it reveals about Pittsburgh’s housing affordability.

Pittsburgh faces a persistent shortage of affordable housing. This is especially true for extremely low-income residents, or those who earn less than 30% of an area’s median income. That’s roughly one-quarter of all Pittsburgh residents.

Local estimates from The Pittsburgh Foundation show a deficit of more than 11,000 affordable units for residents at the lowest income levels. This shortage leaves many of these renters cost-burdened and vulnerable to eviction.

The debate about inclusionary zoning in Pittsburgh is heated. Among advocates, community organizations and some policymakers, it’s seen as an effective policy lever. They say it keeps neighborhoods affordable and diverse while giving residents a voice in how their neighborhoods change.

Conversely, developers and some policymakers argue that inclusionary zoning can reduce new construction and lead to higher rents overall. They also warn it can undermine equity goals by slowing housing production or concentrating affordable units in just a few areas.

Why Pittsburgh struggles to provide affordable housing

Pittsburgh’s housing challenges stem from a combination of rising construction and administrative costs; dependency on fragmented financing structures; housing market shifts and demographic change; a constrained tax base and a complex zoning and permitting system.

These supply-side challenges are compounded by demand-side barriers. In 2025, Pittsburgh added “housing status” as a protected class to prevent discrimination against the unhoused population, those with disabilities, and families fleeing domestic violence. But widespread landlord refusal of Section 8 vouchers shows how affordability policies can fall apart without real enforcement. The Affordable Housing Bonus Program similarly faces compliance problems.

Pittsburgh’s housing crisis is a health crisis

Pittsburgh’s uncertain housing affordability policies have far-reaching implications for public health, equity and neighborhood stability.

Research shows 2 in 5 Pittsburgh renters spend more than 30% of their income on housing, and 1 in 4 spend over half. This increases eviction risk and housing instability, with cascading health effects, such as hypertension, cardiovascular disease, anxiety and depression.

Housing burdens can also force people to make trade-offs between housing and health care, medications, nutritious food or transportation.

Displacement and aging, poorly maintained housing stock compound these problems, making Pittsburgh’s affordable housing crisis a public health crisis as much as a housing one.

Pittsburgh’s path forward

No single policy can resolve Pittsburgh’s housing challenges. But the city has taken meaningful steps.

Since the city budget was approved in March 2026, Pittsburgh has streamlined its permitting processes, increased local funding commitments for community investments and strengthened support for nonprofit developers and community organizations.

Treating housing affordability as a serious policy priority will require more innovation, not only in regulation and financing, but in how policies are evaluated, adapted and sustained over time.

Selena E. Ortiz receives funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

– ref. ‘Affordable’ Pittsburgh doesn’t have enough affordable housing – here’s why – https://theconversation.com/affordable-pittsburgh-doesnt-have-enough-affordable-housing-heres-why-280113

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Tanya D. Marsh, Professor of Law, Wake Forest University

Nearly two-thirds of Americans now opt for cremation – a figure that has been steadily increasing over five decades.

On the surface, that proportion tells a simple story: The nation has embraced cremation, while its preference for casket burials has fallen off.

But as a scholar of funeral and cemetery law, I decided to dig deeper into this trend.

I wanted to know whether people were embracing cremation because they actually preferred it, or if they were rejecting casket burial for one reason or another. I also explored whether consumers were open to new options in death care, like water cremation and human composting.

You’re dead – what’s next?

With funding from the Cremation Association of North America and the Order of the Good Death, a nonprofit organization that promotes more informed and less fear-driven conversations about death and dying, I launched the first
academic survey on consumer preferences in death care in 2024.

The survey presented over 1,500 American adults in a nationally representative sample with the definitions of six legal methods of disposition in a random order. It asked respondents whether they had “heard” of that method and whether they would “consider” that method. The six methods were cremation, casket burial, green burial, donation to science, water cremation and human composting.

At the end of the survey, respondents were asked to rank the six methods of disposition in terms of preference.

While cremation, casket burial and donation to science are nearly universally available in the U.S., the other three methods of disposition are not.

Green burial – defined as the burial of human remains without embalming, contained only in a biodegradable shroud or casket – is legal in all 50 states and Washington, but is only offered by a small share of cemeteries.

Water cremation, also known as alkaline hydrolysis, is a process in which human remains are placed in a pressurized chamber filled with water and chemicals and eventually reduced to powder. Water cremation is legal in 28 states but not offered by many funeral homes.

Human composting, also known as natural organic reduction, is a process in which human remains are placed in a container filled with natural materials and microorganisms that break the body down to soil. It is legal in 14 states and currently commercially available in only three.

The cremation paradox

A central tension emerged in the survey results: While 72.6% of respondents said they would consider cremation, only 33.4% ranked it as their actual first choice. Casket burial edged it out at 35.9% as the top-ranked preference. Yet the real-world cremation rate – 62% – is nearly double the stated first-choice rate.

So what’s going on?

The survey didn’t ask respondents to explain their reasoning, and it intentionally left out costs because they vary dramatically by region. But the numbers strongly imply that many Americans are choosing cremation not because it is their top preference, but because their actual first choice is either unavailable or too expensive.

For example, 40.4% of respondents indicated that they would consider human composting, and 5.9% ranked it as their first choice. But currently fewer than 1,000 bodies are composted in the United States each year.

That is likely because the vast majority of funeral homes do not offer the service, and consumers may have a difficult time locating the handful of providers. Human composting is also more expensive than cremation. The average cost for a direct cremation is approximately US$2,000, while human composting typically costs $5,000 to $7,000. Given these barriers, it’s certainly possible that many consumers are simply pivoting to their second choice: cremation.

The pattern holds across every region of the country, where actual casket burial rates closely match stated first-choice rates, while cremation rates far exceed them. For example, in the South, the burial rate closely tracked the 45.7% who ranked it as their first preference. But the cremation rate was 53.5%, nearly double the 27.3% who ranked it first.

Baby boomers – the generation currently at the forefront of end-of-life planning – are the most willing to consider cremation at 78.8% and the least willing to consider casket burial at just 54.8%. But are they eagerly choosing cremation or simply defaulting to it due to logistical or financial constraints?

Neo-traditional Gen Zs?

At the same time, the data suggests that the youngest adults in the survey are moving in the opposite direction.

A striking 51.7% of Gen Z respondents ranked casket burial as their first choice, compared with just 27.1% of baby boomers. Only 55.9% of Gen Z was even willing to consider cremation – less than today’s actual cremation rate.

It’s tempting to connect this to widely reported trends among Gen Z toward social conservatism, which includes the generation’s embrace of religions with burial traditions.

The survey does show that conservative respondents strongly preferred casket burial over cremation – 53.1% to 28.4% – and that Roman Catholic or Protestant respondents were significantly more likely to favor casket burial. If Gen Z is trending in those directions, a preference for traditional burial would make sense.

But Gen Z may not understand what casket burial involves.

Nearly half who ranked it first also said they would not consider embalming, even though embalming is typically part of the process. Some young respondents may be confusing casket burial with green burial, or may not grasp the financial realities of their stated preference. A standard viewing followed by a casket burial in the United States generally costs at least $10,000, depending on the cost of the burial plot.

Members of Gen Z, who are roughly between 15 and 30 years old, may also feel a stronger connection to their childhood homes. Other studies have found a correlation between geographic mobility and burial preference, perhaps because burial connects a person to a place in perpetuity.

Only longitudinal data, collected year after year, will reveal whether this data indicates a sticky generational shift or an age effect that fades.

Going green

Although Americans have, for a long time, largely limited themselves to two options, burial or cremation, the survey revealed remarkable openness to new methods.

Only 47.5% of respondents had even heard of a green burial. Yet after reading a brief definition, 56.4% said they would consider it. One-third ranked it as their first or second choice.

Water cremation showed an even more dramatic shift: Only 24% had heard of it, but 39.3% were willing to consider it after learning about it.

These numbers suggest significant unmet demand. Human composting was the first choice of nearly 6% of respondents – a striking figure for a method that has existed for only six years and is available in just a few states.

The big takeaway is that the cremation rate may be artificially inflated because of limitations on awareness, availability and legal access to greener alternatives.

The future of American death care probably isn’t a march toward more cremation. Instead, it’ll probably be a bumpy road of unmet wants, generational surprises and alternatives that need a little more time to get on people’s radars.

Tanya D. Marsh is a board member for Recompose, a funeral home in Washington state that exclusively offers natural organic reduction and a board member for the North Carolina Funeral Consumers Alliance. Funding for the Wake Forest Law Survey on Consumer Preferences in Death Care was provided by the Cremation Association of North America and the Order of the Good Death.

– ref. Boom in cremation hides surprising truths about what Americans really want when they die – https://theconversation.com/boom-in-cremation-hides-surprising-truths-about-what-americans-really-want-when-they-die-280340

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Mavra Javed, Postdoctoral Research Associate in Food Science and Human Nutrition, Michigan State University

You may have seen black garlic appear more frequently in grocery stores, restaurants and online recipes over the past few years. Many chefs and food writers describe it as a unique and deeply flavored ingredient. So what is black garlic, and how is it made?

I noticed a growing curiosity about black garlic firsthand while presenting my food science research at a showcase at Michigan State University. Several people asked me basic questions about black garlic, like how it is made and what sets it apart from regular garlic. The ingredient’s growing popularity reflects a broader interest in foods that offer both distinctive flavor and potential health benefits.

Black garlic is not an ancient traditional food, but a recent innovation developed in Japan in the late 20th century. The process of making black garlic is often attributed to Japanese scientist Hamasuke Hamano, who spent a decade refining a method to make garlic more palatable before securing a patent in 2004.

How is black garlic made?

Black garlic is not a different type of garlic. It is made from regular garlic bulbs that have been kept under warm, humid conditions typically in specialized chambers that maintain exact heat and humidity levels for several weeks to months.

Unlike traditional fermentation, this process does not use added microorganisms. Instead, the transformation happens through a combination of heat and moisture. As the garlic is slowly heated under controlled conditions, natural chemical reactions known as Maillard reactions take place within the cloves. These reactions give black garlic its dark color and its slightly sweet, rich flavor.

Producers may use different processing times, storage temperatures and packaging materials, all of which can make the final product vary in taste and quality. Because of this variation, black garlic often doesn’t taste the same across products.

Texture and taste of black garlic

While raw garlic has a sharp, pungent taste, black garlic typically has a milder, slightly sweet taste. The underlying chemistry is complex, but the basic idea is straightforward: Heat and humidity transform both the taste and structure of garlic. These shifts in flavor happen because the compound responsible for garlic’s strong taste breaks down during the heating process. At the same time, heat-driven reactions form new compounds that contribute to a smoother and more complex flavor.

The texture also changes significantly. Instead of being firm and crisp, black garlic becomes soft and almost spreadable.

The heat and humidity break down the structure of garlic by softening its cell walls and altering its sugars and proteins. The reactions also reduce allicin: the compound responsible for garlic’s sharp and pungent flavor. At the same time, Maillard reactions between sugars and amino acids – which make up proteins – create new compounds, including brown pigments called melanoidins and a range of flavor compounds.

What is known about black garlic’s health effects?

Some studies suggest that black garlic may have higher antioxidant activity than raw garlic. Antioxidants are compounds that help neutralize unstable molecules in the body, which can damage cells over time.

Researchers have explored the effects of black garlic on metabolic and cardiovascular health, including blood sugar and cholesterol levels. Some studies report modest improvements in these markers, although the results are not always consistent.

Previous studies have suggested that compounds in black garlic may help reduce inflammation, fight harmful bacteria and even show some potential in slowing the growth of cancer cells.

These findings are promising, but they should be interpreted carefully, especially because most studies have been conducted in laboratory settings or animal models, rather than on people.

What are scientists still figuring out?

Despite growing interest, researchers still have important gaps in their understanding of black garlic. Without well-designed human trials, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions about its health effects.

Another challenge lies in the lack of standardized production methods. Because black garlic production methods vary, its composition can vary. It’s much harder for researchers to compare results across studies and identify consistent benefits. Scientists will need to conduct more research before they can make any promises about black garlic’s benefits – or lack thereof.

Black garlic is proof that a few simple tweaks in how you prepare a food can rewrite its story entirely. For now, you can appreciate black garlic as an interesting addition to your kitchen, while researchers continue to explore what it can and cannot do for your health.

Mavra Javed does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. What is black garlic? How heat and humidity turn a pungent ingredient mild and slightly sweet – https://theconversation.com/what-is-black-garlic-how-heat-and-humidity-turn-a-pungent-ingredient-mild-and-slightly-sweet-280970

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Beth Gazley, Professor of Nonprofit Management and Policy, Indiana University

The Southern Poverty Law Center was indicted on April 21, 2026, on federal fraud charges. The Justice Department alleges that the civil rights group known as the SPLC improperly raised millions of dollars to secretly pay leaders of the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacist and extremist groups for inside information.

The Justice Department alleges that the SPLC, based in Montgomery, Alabama, and founded in 1971, defrauded its donors by making “materially false representations and omissions about what the donated funds would be used for.”

Following the indictment, the SPLC said it “will vigorously defend ourselves, our staff, and our work” against what it described as false allegations.

The Conversation U.S. asked Beth Gazley, an Indiana University scholar of nonprofits and civil society, to explain the significance of this indictment and to put it into the broader context of the Trump administration’s actions regarding some nonprofits.

Are there any precedents for this case?

Tax-exempt nonprofits must follow the law like other institutions. Although nonprofits are sometimes charged with and convicted of fraud, nonprofit fraud cases are relatively rare.

One study found 219 internally detected fraud cases from 2008-2011, out of approximately 1.5 million registered U.S. nonprofits. Only 20 of those cases involved defrauding donors.

The American Society of Fraud Examiners found similarly low numbers of nonprofit fraud cases.

A notable example during the COVID-19 pandemic involved the founders of a Minnesota nonprofit, Feeding Our Future, that set up fake mobile meal distribution sites and pocketed US$250 million of the U.S. Department of Agriculture money that funded them.

It’s unusual, to be clear, for federal authorities to take this kind of action when federal funding is not involved, and the SPLC does not accept government grants. That’s because the attorney general for the relevant state normally handles litigation against charities suspected of wrongdoing.

And it’s atypical for federal or state authorities to step in on behalf of a nonprofit’s donors without citing any complaints from specific donors.

The SPLC paid its informants more than $3 million through a program that it has since shut down. Although federal prosecutors allege that extremists used some of this money to carry out crimes, they cited no specific examples.

Likewise, this indictment names no donors. But there are precedents for this kind of legal action.

I see parallels between this case and a lawsuit the attorney general of Illinois filed against a for-profit telemarketing firm for the allegedly false representations it made to donors. The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in 2003 that a regulatory agency can sue a charity for fraud when the state can prove that its fundraisers had been deliberately deceptive.

Also, in 2025, members of the Trump administration accused several progressive groups, including the SPLC – without providing any evidence – of encouraging violence against right-wing public figures, such as Charlie Kirk, the conservative leader who was killed while leading an event on a college campus.

How does donor accountability normally work?

Large donors occasionally sign legal agreements with charities that make their gifts contingent on a specific project. For example, a donor might give a university $30 million to ensure that a building will be constructed and emblazoned with their name.

If that building isn’t built or the gift is diverted for other purposes, the donor can sue to get their money back under contract law.

But most donors are making unrestricted gifts supporting the broader mission, leaving the use of those funds at the discretion of the nonprofit that received them. It falls to the nonprofit’s board of directors to monitor how donations are used.

Boards are a legal requirement because they act as fiduciaries of the organization’s tax-exempt mission – meaning that they are responsible for ensuring donations support the mission and follow public law.

Did the SPLC deceive its donors by paying informants?

Normally, a donor might file a complaint against a charity they’ve funded for spending their donations in a manner that is at odds with its mission.

Or, regulators could complain that some donations were not used for tax-exempt purposes.

The Justice Department is focusing on how the SPLC secretly paid informants working inside the Ku Klux Klan and other organizations the SPLC viewed as white supremacy and hate groups.

Because these informants continued to engage in extremist activity while undercover, the indictment claims the SPLC effectively supported the hate groups’ operations, violating the part of its mission dedicating it to “dismantle white supremacy.”

Bryan Fair, the SPLC’s interim CEO, responded to the indictment by arguing that its undercover activities, aided by paid informants, helped achieve some of the group’s goals. On the SPLC website, the group says it “exposes hate and anti-democracy extremism, and counters disinformation and conspiracy theories with research and community resources.”

Do any other organizations do undercover work?

In its response, the SPLC has also observed that it shared much of the information gained from inside informants with law enforcement, including the FBI.

In October 2025, the FBI ended its relationship with the SPLC. It said at the time that monitoring extremist organizations violated those organizations’ free-speech rights.

Secret surveillance conducted by nonprofits often stirs up controversies, but it is not illegal unless some other law is violated, such as a privacy right.

The conservative groups Project Veritas and the Center for Medical Progress have both used their donors’ money for undercover surveillance.

What could ultimately be at stake?

The SPLC’s indictment is the latest in a series of attacks by the Trump administration against nonprofits that support Palestinian rights, civil rights and other progressive causes.

The Trump White House and conservative lawmakers more broadly have tried to delegitimize and defund progressive organizations by designating them as “domestic terror groups. To date, that effort has failed.

In November 2024, the House passed a nonprofit-terrorism measure that subsequently failed in the Senate. At the time, Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat, observed that it is already a ”felony crime to provide material support to terrorist groups.“

Similar bills were reintroduced in both chambers of Congress in December 2025.

To win a conviction of the SPLC in court, the Justice Department would have to prove that the nonprofit deliberately deceived donors and knew that the money it paid its extremist informants would support criminal activity.

This was the approach Georgia’s government used against environmental activists in 2022. But Georgia indicted individual activists rather than the organization they were affiliated with. Those cases are still pending.

The specific activities these SPLC informants pursued while undercover would separately be indictable if they were criminal activities. But of the eight unnamed individuals in the indictment, the only activities the Justice Department alleges the SPLC funded are “racist postings” and “fundraising.”

And both of those activities are constitutionally protected under the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech rights.

Beth Gazley does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Trump administration’s indictment of the Southern Poverty Law Center breaks with norms – and may lack evidence of criminal wrongdoing – https://theconversation.com/trump-administrations-indictment-of-the-southern-poverty-law-center-breaks-with-norms-and-may-lack-evidence-of-criminal-wrongdoing-281310