Something that has an effect on you within minutes, hours or days is said to have “acute” toxicity. There are many scientific studies showing common environmental and man-made chemicals can be toxic in this way and make animals very sick. These studies also show the dose of a chemical required to make an animal very sick can vary considerably from animal to animal. While genetic differences between the animals are largely responsible for this variability, it’s more complicated than this. How sensitive you may be to an environmental or man-made chemical is not just up to your genetic makeup. You are more vulnerable at certain stages of your life, like during pregnancy or when you are very young. But the story doesn’t end there either.

With acute toxicity you get sick very soon after being exposed to the chemical. That is not the only way a chemical can do harm however. A chemical can also do harm if you are repeatedly exposed to small doses over a very long time. This is referred to as “chronic” toxicity. With chronic toxicity, each small exposure may not produce any immediately apparent ill effects; it is the cumulative effects of the repeated small doses that cause the problem. The death of a thousand cuts was a form of torture and execution practised in Imperial China. None of the individual cuts was fatal but together…

Most of the legislation on chemical safety and estimates of safe exposure levels are based on results from acute toxicity testing in animals. While measuring the effects of acute chemical exposure is relatively quick and straightforward, making safety decisions based solely on these studies is problematic. It is probably no surprise the toxic effects we see in animals generally also apply to humans, although sensitivities can vary between species, depending on the chemical. These acute studies do not however tell you anything about the possible chronic effects of a chemical. Indeed, it is not possible to accurately predict what the chronic or long-term consequences or health effects may be for a particular chemical based solely on its acute effects. Secondly, in animals and humans, the effects of chronic exposure may only become apparent after a period of time. And for long-lived animals like humans, it may take decades for an effect to show up. Smoking is a good example of this. The chemicals in cigarette smoke do not kill or make smokers or passive smokers sick straight away. Over a longer time frame however, the effects can be devastating (2). Another example is chronic exposure to asbestos, as occurred for those involved in mining asbestos. Chronic asbestos exposure can lead to serious lung disease including cancer (3). Aware the dose required to produce chronic toxicity may be far lower than is needed for acute toxicity, regulators apply a “safety factor” to their calculations to determine what a safe level of exposure to a particular chemical may be. So for example, the legally “safe” level of exposure to a particular chemical may be 1,000 times lower than the dose needed to produce any acute effects. While this is sensible, how big a safety margin to allow is often a guess, as there is no reliable data to base the calculation on.

The effects of long term exposure to arsenic in drinking water is a good example of how small doses of something present in the food or water that has no immediate effect can become a public health issue (4 – 6). It is also a good example of the difficulty in determining what the “safe” level of chronic exposure is. Arsenic is an abundant metal in the earth’s crust. Around 70 mg of arsenic is a lethal dose for 50 % of rats exposed, while over 100 mg will kill most of the animals. If we extrapolate these figures to humans, you would need over 5 grams (0.176 ounces) or more to kill a 70 kg (154 pound) man or woman. Even allowing humans are probably less sensitive to arsenic than rats, the amount of arsenic required to kill most humans is fairly high. The symptoms of acute arsenic poisoning include abdominal pain, difficulty swallowing, vomiting, diarrhoea and severe muscle cramps. These symptoms will occur an hour or more after ingestion. Now in some parts of the world, most notably Bangladesh and parts of India, small but significant amounts of arsenic are found in drinking water. The amounts vary according to the well but in most wells the concentration rarely exceeds 300 millionths of a gram per litre, although occasionally the levels may be up to four times this (5). If we then assume that the average villager in India or Bangladesh consumes no more than one litre of water per day, the maximum intake of arsenic in the drinking water would be around 2 milligrams or 2 thousandths of a gram per day. This is over 2,000 times less than the dose required to kill. Despite this, there is overwhelming evidence these relatively minor amounts of arsenic in the drinking water can increase the risk of discolouration and thickening of the skin, cancers of the lung, skin and bladder, high blood pressure and even diabetes. It is not known whether there is a threshold dose below which arsenic in drinking water is safe, although Canadian and US government agencies have reacted by reducing the recommended levels to 25 and 10 millionths of a gram per litre respectively (7). There are at least two conclusions to be drawn from these studies. Firstly, chronic exposure to small amounts of arsenic can cause very significant health problems. Secondly, the health problems of chronic exposure are quite different from those observed when acutely toxic doses are taken.

Arsenic in groundwater occurs naturally, so we potentially have limited control over the exposure of people living in affected countries. For man-made chemicals however, we do have a choice. There are literally thousands of toxic chemicals released into the environment every day as a result of human activity. We are in complete control over how much of these chemicals are produced and how much ends up in the environment. These include pesticides, fertilisers, heavy metals such as mercury or lead, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), plastics, industrial by products, air pollutants, water chlorination by products and a host of other substances, many of which have not been characterised. So if we know there are potential problems with exposure to these chemicals, why do we do it? And while we may be told the amounts of these chemicals are well below the toxic dose, we know from the effects of other chemicals – like tobacco smoke, asbestos, and arsenic – that it is not always easy to accurately predict the consequences of long term exposure to small doses of chemicals. (For those wanting more information on the potential health effects of environmental pollutants, take a look at the Promoting Good Health book “The Silent Threat” and the soon to be released “Chemical Pollution – Known Unknowns”, available through the online store. Click here to visit the online store

As you have likely guessed from the preceding paragraphs, there is a bigger concern. Potential pharmaceutical drugs destined to treat human diseases are the most rigorously tested of all chemicals. Before a drug can be approved for human use it has to go through years of animal testing and human clinical trials costing hundreds of millions of dollars. The purpose of all this testing is not only to show the drug is effective at treating the desired disease but that it does not have any harmful side effects and whatever side effects it does have are identified and thoroughly characterised. Despite this rigorous testing things get missed and mistakes are made. The birth defects caused by Thalidomide and the cardiovascular effects of the COX-2 inhibitor Rofecoxib (marketed under the brand name Vioxx) are two notable examples where unexpected and tragic side effects did not come to light until after the drug was in widespread use (1, 13 – 15). Any pharmaceutical drug approved for human use is always used at amounts much lower than its toxic dose. Even so, toxic effects may later show up at these lower therapeutic doses. And if things get missed for the most rigorously tested chemicals, how do we know what impact there will be on our health and wellbeing for the large number of environmental chemicals that have not gone through this extensive testing or gone through any testing at all? (1).

The short answer to this question is we have no idea! For ethical reasons scientists and doctors can only carry out limited experiments with humans. They must therefore rely on tests on animals and retrospective epidemiological studies on human populations to get the data they need. Epidemiological studies look at the distribution of particular diseases (like lung cancer) within a population or particular group and try to find out if they have something in common that may explain why they all got the disease. These factors may include their diet, sex, age, weight, occupation, geographic location, lifestyle, activity, genetic disposition or exposure to an environmental chemical or infectious agent. Because so many factors have to be taken into account, all these studies can do is suggest, rather than prove, what the potential cause of the disease under investigation may be.

The other problem with epidemiological studies is they can only be done after the event. They cannot be done in advance to predict what effects a chemical may have before it is released for use or has entered the environment. If a problem is identified later by then there may be widespread environmental damage or contamination and human suffering. And even then, it may take a long time before something is done about it. And if powerful financial interests are involved it can be even harder for the truth to come out and for meaningful change to occur. The battle to “prove” smoking contributed to diseases such as lung cancer took many years and lengthy and expensive struggles through the courts, despite clear and overwhelming scientific evidence from numerous medical and epidemiological studies. Even now, despite the undisputed link between smoking and disease, no government has yet taken the obvious public health step of banning the sale of tobacco products altogether.

Nevertheless, things are improving. Epidemiological studies are becoming more sophisticated all the time. We now have better and more sensitive methods to assess the effects of environmental chemicals on our health. Governments are also responding to concerns raised by the community by revising the limits of exposure to pollutants such as arsenic, lead, mercury, flame retardants (like PBDEs) and plastics additives (like bisphenol A) (8 – 11). Governments have also introduced stricter environmental regulations on industry and, in some cases, even banning the manufacture of certain chemicals altogether like the polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (12). There is no doubt the increasing awareness of the potential hazards of chronic exposure to environmental chemicals will lessen the risk. The down side is more and more man-made chemicals are being created every day and that governments are often slow to respond. It took decades for the US government to finally ban PCBs. By then the pollutant was everywhere in the environment and will continue to do damage for years to come. One can only hope the lessons learnt from past mistakes will result in shorter response times in the future. Undoubtedly, a better strategy is for chemical manufacturers or polluters to prove a new chemical or a chemical being released into the environment is broken down quickly and does not cause harm in the long term. Legislation has been suggested along these lines by several governments. It will likely be some time before such laws and requirements are widespread however.

Meanwhile, stay happy and healthy.

References

(1) FDA Public Health Advisory: Safety of Vioxx, September 30, 2004.
Available online at: http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProviders/ucm106274.htm
(2) Boyle P.: Cancer, cigarette smoking and premature death in Europe: a review including the Recommendations of European Cancer Experts Consensus Meeting, Helsinki, October 1996. Lung Cancer. 17 (1), 1-60, 1997.
Abstract available online at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9194026
(3) Collegium Ramazzini; Asbestos is still with us: Repeat call for a universal ban. Arch. Environ. Occup. Health, 65 (3), 121-126, 2010.
Abstract available online at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20705571
(4) Kapaj, S.; Peterson, H.; Liber, K. and Bhattacharya, P.; Human health effects from chronic arsenic poisoning–A review. J. Environ. Sci. Health A Tox. Hazard Subst. Environ. Eng., 41 (10), 2399-2428, 2006.
Abstract available online at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17018421
(5) Ahamed, S.; Kumar Sengupta, M.; Mukherjee, A.; Amir Hossain, M.; Das, B.; Nayak, B.; Pal, A.; Chandra Mukherjee, S.; Pati, S.; Nath Dutta, R.; Chatterjee, G.; Mukherjee, A.; Srivastava, R. and Chakraborti, D.; Arsenic groundwater contamination and its health effects in the state of Uttar Pradesh (UP) in upper and middle Ganga plain, India: a severe danger. Sci. Total Environ., 370 (2-3), 310-322, 2006.
Abstract available online at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16899281
(6) Del Razo, L. M.; García-Vargas, G. G.; Valenzuela, O. L.; Castellanos, E. H.; Sánchez-Peña, L. C.; Currier, J. M.; Drobná, Z.; Loomis, D. and Stýblo, M.; Exposure to arsenic in drinking water is associated with increased prevalence of diabetes: A cross-sectional study in the Zimapán and Lagunera regions in Mexico. Environ. Health, 10, 73, 2011.
Abstract available online at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21864395
(7) Arsenic in Drinking Water; U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Available online at: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/arsenic/index.cfm
(8) Mercury: Fish Consumption Advisories: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/hg/advisories.htm
(9) EPA Sets New Limits on Lead in Gasoline. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, March 3, 1985.
Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/lead/01.html
(10) Pollution Prevention and Toxics: Polybrominated diphenylethers (PBDEs). U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/pbde/
(11) Bisphenol A: Chemical Substances. Government of Canada.
Available online at: http://www.chemicalsubstanceschimiques.gc.ca/challenge-defi/batch-lot-2/bisphenol-a/index-eng.php
(12) Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): Basic Information. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/tsd/pcbs/pubs/about.htm
(13) Mitchell, A. A.; Adverse drug reactions in utero: perspectives on teratogens and strategies for the future. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther., 89 (6), 781-783, 2011.
Abstract available online at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21593753
(14) Dajani, E. Z. and Islam, K.; Cardiovascular and gastrointestinal toxicity of selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors in man. J. Physiol. Pharmacol., 59 Suppl 2, 117-133, 2008.
Abstract available online at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18812633
Full article available online at: http://www.jpp.krakow.pl/journal/archive/08_08_s2/pdf/117_08_08_s2_article.pdf
(15) Layton, D.; Souverein, P. C.; Heerdink, E. R.; Shakir, S. A. and Egberts, A. C.; Evaluation of risk profiles for gastrointestinal and cardiovascular adverse effects in nonselective NSAID and COX-2 inhibitor users: a cohort study using pharmacy dispensing data in The Netherlands. Drug Saf., 31 (2), 143-158, 2008.
Abstract available online at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18217790

No one knows exactly who the seventh billion person to be born was or where or when they were born. So to mark the event, the United Nations chose October 31 as the date and identified babies in various countries around the globe to act as symbolic heralds for the milestone.

How did we get to this milestone? It’s an important question with a very interesting answer.

It took all of human history to reach 1 billion people in 1800.

It was another 127 years before we reached 2 billion in 1927.

It took 33 more years to reach 3 billion in 1960.

Another 14 years to reach 4 billion in 1974.

Only 13 years to reach 5 billion in 1987.

12 years to reach 6 billion in 1999.

And in 2011 – another 12 years later – we passed 7 billion.

Figures courtesy of the United Nations Population Fund (1).

Look at how fast the population is growing. While it took two human lifetimes to go from 1 to 2 billion, it now takes little more than a decade for the population to increase by the same number. In my lifetime, the world’s human population has increased by over 4 billion.

But growth is a good thing, isn’t it? Shareholders want their stocks, investments and superannuation to go up; we want our houses to increase in value; business owners want greater productivity; employees want more take-home pay and economists and politicians constantly tell us we must have a growing economy to guarantee our future prosperity. So an increasing population must also be good? More people to do the work; more people to buy the goods we make and more people to pay taxes and contribute to the economy. So the faster we grow the better off we are, right? While it sounds great on paper, does it really work that way?

Seven billion people, even living modest lives, need a lot of resources. Eight billion people will need even more and nine billion even more again, when we reach that number by 2050 (1). And what happens to the resources we need when the growing population in the third world wants the same luxuries and lifestyle we enjoy in the first world? And who can blame them?

So what human population can the Earth support and how will we know when we get there? Some believe we have already gone past the Earth’s capacity to cope and we are living on borrowed time.

Economists love growth curves, and economic growth is the new religion. Biologists, however, see through different eyes. The same graphs that excite economists make biologists very afraid. Why?

At the same time as human population and economic prosperity have exploded, the speed at which the planet is losing other species has grown alarmingly. Something is wrong. The rate of extinction is already over 1,000 times the historical average and shows no signs of slowing down (2 and 3). In the past 500 million years there have been five great mass extinctions of plants and animals on Earth. Many believe humans and human activity are causing a sixth. The scientists Eugene Stoermer and later the Nobel Laureate Paul Crutzen even coined a phrase to describe our effect on the planet: “Anthropocene” – The age of man (4).

This is not mere coincidence. There are numerous examples in nature where the success of one organism or species happens at the expense of others. If a bacterial infection or a cancer goes unchecked it will eventually kill its host. If a predator eats all its prey, it will starve. Nothing in nature goes on growing forever. Nature has ways of restoring the balance, of putting an upstart back in its place. Indeed, unlimited growth does not occur in nature – ever. So while economists are getting excited over ever-increasing growth, biologists are wondering how much longer it can go on. If nature does not allow other species to have unlimited growth, why are humans any different? What makes us so special? Why do we believe the rules of nature won’t apply to us? Some argue it is our birth right. That we have been chosen by either evolutionary superiority or God, depending on your personal beliefs, to dominate and rule this planet and through our ingenuity and technological genius, fulfil our potential and take our rightful place in the grand cosmic order.

To put the arrogance and danger of this thinking into perspective, I need the help of astronomer Carl Sagan. At Sagan’s suggestion, the Voyager I spacecraft, having completed its mission and nearing the edge of the solar system, was instructed by NASA to turn around and photograph the planets of our solar system as it sped off into interstellar space. In the images Voyager I sent back between February and June 1990, 12 years after it was launched, was a portrait of the Earth from 6 billion kilometers (3.7 billion miles). On those images the Earth is less than the size of one pixel. A Pale Blue Dot. Of it Sagan said:

“Consider again that dot. That’s here. That’s home. That’s us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every ‘superstar’, every ‘supreme leader’, every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.

The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds.

Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.

The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.

It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we’ve ever known.” (5)

For us, everything that ever was and everything that is, exists on this Pale Blue Dot. So aside from cosmic dust, the occasional passing asteroid and the particles and energy we receive from the sun, what we have now is all we will ever have. No one is coming to our rescue. No one is coming to bring us fresh supplies. No more water, no more minerals, no more continents to discover and no more of the atoms that make up our food, our technologies, our bodies and the air we breathe.

Nature is very good at recycling. In nature, nothing is wasted; everything is re-used. What is the waste of one species is the food or raw materials for another. And because nothing is wasted and everything is recycled, the systems are sustainable. They keep on going, keep on cycling, keep on renewing themselves, over and over again. Our technology isn’t based on the same thinking however. Our technology is based on consumption, not on fair exchange. So while the Earth may seem vast to us, it has limits. And one day, if we continue to grow in number and continue to consume, consume, consume with no thought for the future, we will start to run out of things. Things that give us the standard of living we now enjoy. Things that make our lives comfortable. Things we need to survive. And the more of us there are, the faster it will happen.

Warnings about the danger of runaway population growth are nothing new. In 1798, just as the population was approaching 1 billion, the English scholar , Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus FRS said population growth would eventually outstrip our ability to grow enough food in “An Essay on the Principle of Population” (6). In the 1940′s others revived this thinking, most famously in 1948 with “Our Plundered Planet” written by the long-time President of the New York Zoological Society, Fairfield Osborn Jr (7) and “Road to Survival” written by the ecologist William Vogt (8). It was further popularised and politicised in 1968 by the ecologist and demographer Paul Ehrlich in his book “The Population Bomb” (9) and the 1972 think-tank report “The Limits to Growth” by Meadows and colleagues (10). Most recently in Australia we had the television documentary, “Population Puzzle” by businessman and philanthropist Dick Smith (11).

If these warnings are to be taken seriously, why haven’t we already drowned in the sea of humanity? Why do we keep on going? Keep on growing? Why does our population continue to increase?

The answer lies in human ingenuity. Malthus, Osborn, Vogt and Ehrlich all under-estimated the extent of human ingenuity. Following World War II, the increasing industrialisation of agriculture and the use of artificial fertilizers and pesticides led to the “Green Revolution,” which has fed our ever growing population.

Some, notably the economists Julian Simon and Friedrich Hayek, have argued that because of our intelligence we are separate from nature and population growth is the solution to both environmental problems and resource scarcity because human ingenuity, market forces and technological progress will increase efficiencies and find new ways of doing things. With such ingenuity we can continue to grow, potentially indefinitely (12 – 14).

In the short term, this may be true. The same human ingenuity and technological progress that fed the world through the “Green Revolution,” has also created the high level of affluence and standard of living many now enjoy. Sadly however, this prosperity has not been equally distributed. Over 80 % of the world’s population – 5.6 billion people – currently survive on less than $10.00 per day (15). The inequality of this situation I shall leave for another time.

While it would be easy to believe in a bright future created through similar advances in human ingenuity, it is a deception – a fool’s paradise. What is not obvious – or discussed – or even understood – is the environmental cost of these advances and how much of the limited Earth’s resources we are using up in the process. There will come a time when the environmental impact of more and more people living on Earth will outweigh the economic contribution they make.

There are fatal flaws in Simon’s arguments that our ingenuity and a growing population will solve everything. However, given many still believe in these theories, we need to look at them.

The first fatal flaw is there will always be a technological solution for every problem. While it might be true in the mechanical or physical world, it isn’t nature’s way. Mechanical systems often degrade slowly and give warning of an impending failure. Living systems don’t work that way and often give no warning at all they are about to fail. They adapt, they adapt, they adapt and when they can’t adapt any more they fail catastrophically. A heart attack is often the first sign you have a cardiovascular disease. The problem is 50 % of people die from their first heart attack, so you may never get the opportunity to “fix” it later. And even if you are one of the lucky ones and survive your first heart attack, the damage done may be too great to fix. In the natural world it is better to prevent a problem from occurring in the first place than come up with a solution when the problem is real, scary and in your face.

There is also the question of timing. As the population grows and grows, the size and scale of the population-related problems we have to solve also grow. It means the problems get bigger and bigger. As the rate of population growth increases, it also means the time you have to come up with a solution gets shorter and shorter. Eventually, you need to come up with massive solutions that needed to be in place yesterday. To give the necessary lead-time to deal with the really big issues you need to start putting the solutions in place long before it ever becomes obvious you have a problem. Sadly, we don’t have a very good track record of doing this. One day we will strike a problem so big we either won’t know how to solve it or won’t have enough time or resources left to solve it. And the bickering of politicians and the failure of nations to agree, act on, or even acknowledge the global issues we are now facing does not give confidence. We are facing issues that are bigger than any one country and go across national boundaries. Yet our political system isn’t designed to handle it.

The next problem with technological solutions is one of accessibility. How much high technology can you buy or access if you are living on less than $10.00 a day?

The biggest problem with finding new technological solutions is they only work for technological problems. If the problems are caused by our attitude, then no machine or sophisticated technology will help. “Change your outlook and you change your world” is not a shallow New Age catch phrase. And no machine can do it for you.

The second fatal flaw in the arguments of Simon and his supporters is the belief that anything affecting human affairs always has a higher value than things that don’t. Indeed, Simon was often quoted (and likely misquoted) as regarding human environmental impacts that did not have direct and measurable economic impacts as “trivial”. To believe economic value is the only valid measure of worth or importance is naïve, arrogant and dangerous. It’s also scientifically wrong and a moral obscenity. It ignores our humanity. It ignores our place on the Pale Blue Dot. And it ignores how absolutely dependent we are on the other inhabitants of the Pale Blue Dot if we are to survive. It isn’t called the “Web of Life” for nothing!

Fortunately, later researchers have taken a more enlightened view. In “Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive”, scientist and award-winning author Jared Diamond looks at how several ancient societies, considered advanced at the time, collapsed because they ignored their environmental impacts or did not fully appreciate their reliance on a healthy and stable environment for their survival (16).

I have no doubt these ancient civilizations had lots of human ingenuity. But when their ingenuity ran out, so did their options.

No one questioned chopping all the trees down on Easter Island. If anyone did, the decision-makers weren’t listening. And the giant stone statues that still stare out to sea on those treeless islands are all that remain of the civilisation that once flourished there and the arrogance and folly that ended it.

The “We must have growth” mantra of business as usual is not an option. If we keep going as we are and the 9 billion people living on the planet in 2050 all achieve a standard of living to match the OECD nations, we will need an economy 15 times the size of the one we have today and 75 times what it was in 1950 (17). How is this possible on a planet with limited resources? How is this possible when so many of the crucial resources we need are already over-exploited? (3, 17 and 18).

So are Malthus, Osborn, Vogt, Ehrlich, Dick Smith and others wrong? No, the fundamental principals they describe are sound. You cannot have unlimited growth on a planet with limited resources. What human ingenuity has done is buy us time. Without a change of attitude, however, all human ingenuity can ever do is postpone the impending disasters first predicted by Malthus in 1798. It cannot stop them. History has shown us that.

We need to start talking about the “elephants in the room”. The first is population. The second is our relationship to the natural world and how we use the limited resources on it. And the third is our relationship to each other and to ourselves.  We need to start having the debate now, while we still have time to explore options. We also need to involve everyone in the debate because we are all part of the problem and must all learn how to be part of the solution.

With so many “elephants in the room” why aren’t the politicians doing anything? It is likely because these issues are such political hot potatoes. To deal with these issues we will have to make big changes – changes that will affect every aspect of our lives. People don’t like change, especially changes that may directly affect them and their quality of life. The problem with political hot potatoes is they get hotter and hotter. And the longer you leave them, the hotter they become.

Nevertheless, it is a debate we must have. And it is a debate we must have now.

Scientist and award-winning author Jared Diamond says societies choose to survive or fail (16). Our future and the future of our children will be determined by the choices we make. What will they be?

References

(1) United Nations Population Fund. http://www.unfpa.org
(2) International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species. http://www.iucnredlist.org
(3) Rockström. J.; Steffen, W.; Noone, K.; Persson, A.; Chapin, F. S. 3rd; Lambin, E. F.; Lenton, T. M.; Scheffer, M.; Folke, C.; Schellnhuber, H. J.; Nykvist, B.; de Wit, C. A.; Hughes, T., van der Leeuw, S.; Rodhe, H.; Sörlin, S.; Snyder, P. K.; Costanza, R.; Svedin, U.; Falkenmark, M.; Karlberg, L.; Corell, R. W.; Fabry, V. J.; Hansen, J.; Walker, B.; Liverman, D.; Richardson, K.; Crutzen, P. and Foley, J. A. (2009) A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461 (7263), 472-475, 2009.
Comment in: Nature, 461 (7263), 447-448, 2009.
A more readable critique of the above paper can be found at: Gaffney, O.; A Planet on the Edge. Global Change, 74, 10-13, Winter 2009. Available online at: http://www.igbp.net/5.1b8ae20512db692f2a680003122.html
(4) Steffen, W., Grinevald, J., Crutzen, P. and McNeil, J.; The Anthropocene: Conceptual and historical perspectives. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A, 369, 842 – 867, 2011. Full article available online at: http://biospherology.com/PDF/Phil_Trans_R_Soc_A_2011_Steffen.pdf
(5) Sagan, C.; Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space. Random House, New York, USA, 1994.
The cited text, taken from the audio book spoken by Carl Sagan, together with some matching images is available as a YouTube clip at: http://www.cosmosportal.org/video/view/142889/?topic=28404
(6) Malthus, T. R.; An Essay on the Principle of Population, 1798.
(Six updated editions were published through his life, the last one in 1826).
Available online at: http://www.esp.org/books/malthus/population/malthus.pdf
(7) Osborn, H. F. Jr; Our Plundered Planet. Faber and Faber, London, England, 1948.
(8) Vogt, W.; Road to Survival. Sloane Associates, New York, USA, 1948.
(9) Ehrlich, P.; The Population Bomb. Ballantine, New York, USA, 1968.
(10) Meadows, D. H.; Meadows, D. L.; Randers, J. and Behrens, W. W. III; The Limits to Growth. Universe Books, New York, USA, 1972.
Two follow up reports have been published, expanding on the original:
Meadows, D. H.; Randers, J. and Meadows, D. L.; Beyond the Limits. Chelsea Green Publishing, Vermont, USA, 1993.
Meadows, D. H.; Randers, J. and Meadows, D. L.; Limits to Growth: The 30 Year Update. Chelsea Green Publishing, Vermont, USA, 2004.
In 2008, Graham Turner from the Australian CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems Division published A Comparison of ‘The Limits to Growth’ with Thirty Years of Reality, where he checks the predictions made in the original 1972 book.
Available online at: http://www.csiro.au/files/files/plje.pdf
(11) Smith, D.; The Population Puzzle. First broadcast on ABC TV (Australia) in August 2010.
Available on DVD from: http://dicksmithpopulation.com
A companion book Dick Smith’s Population Crisis was published in May 2011. Allen and Unwin, Sydney, Australia.
(12) Simon , J. L.; The Ultimate Resource. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA, 1981.
(13) Simon, J. L.; The Ultimate Resource 2. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA, 1996.
(14) Hayek, F. A.; The Constitution of Liberty. Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd, London, England, 1960.
(15) Shah, A.; Global Issues: Poverty Facts and Stats. http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats
(16) Diamond, J.; Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive. Allen Lane, London, England, 2005.
(17) Jackson, T.; Prosperity Without Growth. Economics For A Finite Planet. Earthscan, London, England, 2009.
(18) Cohen, D.; Earth’s natural wealth: An audit. New Scientist, May 23, 2007.
Full article available online at: http://www.science.org.au/nova/newscientist/027ns_005.htm

But the breakneck speed of development has come at a price. Pedestrian crossings are ignored and the traffic so congested crossing a road at peak hour is not worth the risk. The constant noise. Footpaths with cracked and uneven surfaces. Inadequate gutters and drains and strange smells coming from storm water. For me however, the most troubling aspect of all this “development” was the quality of the air. You can wear earplugs to keep out the noise. You can get used to taking your life in your hands every time you cross the road, and you can learn to take special care when walking on cracked and uneven pavements. However there is really very little you can do about the quality of the air you breathe – we have to breathe to live!

While the poor quality of the air was obvious at street level, it was much more dramatic looking down from the aircraft as my wife and I flew into the city. All we could see was a dirty opaque haze, enveloping the city. As we descended into the haze to land I began to wonder – Where did the haze come from? What is in polluted city air? And more importantly: Is it safe and what does it do to our bodies? Can it increase the risk of disease? And, if it does, which diseases? I made a mental note to look into the topic when I arrived back in Australia. We know quite a lot about air pollution, because many cities around the world have been monitoring both the levels of air pollution and the types of pollutants for many years. Sadly, we know far less about the long-term health effects of air pollution.

Air pollution is made up of volatile (i.e. gaseous material) and particulate matter. The gaseous material may be invisible and the main gases include:

• Nitrogen dioxide (formed from burning fossil fuels or wood);
• Ozone (formed from the interaction of oxygen in the air with nitrogen dioxide and hydrocarbons from fossil fuels);
• Sulphur dioxide (formed from burning fossil fuels, smelting, and paper production);
• Carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide (formed by burning fossil fuels);
• Methane (formed by the decomposition of plant matter and produced by livestock).

Of course, many other gaseous pollutants are released as a consequence of a whole host of industrial activities and it is next to impossible to identify them all.

The particulate matter in air pollution is just as complex. Some is released into the atmosphere as a consequence of natural processes like volcanoes, forest fires, pollen and moulds. However, it is the particulate matter coming from human activity that is of concern. Most of this particulate matter comes from burning fossil fuels and other industrial activities. The particulate matter from human activity varies considerably in size. To make it easier to study and model, particulate matter in air pollution is thought to behave like small spheres with varying diameters and masses. Most attention has focused on particulate matter between 1-10 micrometres in size. As a micrometer is one millionth of a metre, these particles are considerably smaller than the head of a pin and can easily find their way into our lungs. Chemical analysis has demonstrated these particles are made up of materials derived from both natural and industrial sources. The natural sources include soil, sand, salt, rocks and dusts. The material originating from industrial activity includes (to name but a few) dust from cement, sand, concrete, plastics, factory exhausts, power plants, wood dust and motor vehicles. The particulate matter from motor vehicles deserves special mention and includes metals, fragments from tyres and brake linings and a wide range of hydrocarbon based compounds coming from the incomplete burning of the fuel. Particulate matter in the air can also interact chemically with the volatile gases discussed above. The end result of all this is a cocktail of chemical substances hanging in the air all of which can find its way into our bodies every time we breathe. And our lungs and sinuses are on the front line.

So, the tiny particles in polluted air are a cocktail of chemical substances. Many are known to be hazardous and there are others yet to be identified whose health effects are unknown. And what of their effects in combination? Given it is almost impossible to avoid air pollution, especially if you live or work in a big city, it is very important to know if the chemical cocktail you are breathing is safe. Sadly, we know surprisingly little about this.

We do know particles in the air – depending on their chemical nature – can increase the risk of disease. It is well known for example that workers in dusty professions like miners, woodworkers and quarry workers have an increased incidence of lung diseases such as asbestosis, black lung and silicosis (1 – 3). But what if the particles also contain lots of adsorbed chemicals, as you could expect to find in polluted cities? Is it a double whammy? No one can really say what this gaseous and particulate matter is doing to humans, particularly in the long term. We do however have some idea of what the effects may be from animal studies. In animals, the particulate matter in air pollution can induce inflammation in the lungs (4). Inflammation has been linked to conditions such as asthma, chronic obstructive lung disease (COPD), heart disease and even cancer and there is evidence particulate matter can cause inflammation in humans (5). There are also an increasing number of medical and scientific reports showing a link between exposure to particulate matter and an increased risk of lung diseases such as asthma, COPD and heart disease (6 – 8).

We really do not know how important air pollution is to the development of degenerative heart and lung conditions. Is it just a few or are significant numbers affected? Because we do not know it is a very important question. The other very important question: What can we do about it? – is also not easy to answer. The only sensible and practical solution is to reduce the emissions produced from the burning of fossil fuels in particular, as these are a major source of both the gaseous and particulate matter in air pollution. In the developed world, there is an increasing awareness pollution is a problem and steps are being taken to reduce the levels of air pollutants. For example, we no longer add lead to petrol in most developed countries and governments around the world are bringing in stricter controls on the emissions from motor vehicles, mining and factories. However, bringing in reforms like these to control pollution takes time and while we wait, all of us who live or work in big cities continue to be exposed.

Promoting Good Health has concerns about the effects of environmental pollutants on our health and wellbeing. If you want to know more about what sorts of environmental chemicals are present in our food and water, their possible impact on our health and how to avoid them or reduce your exposure, please check out our book “The Silent Threat” available through our website. Our new book, “Chemical Pollutants: Known Unknowns”, which looks at our exposure to pollutants released into the environment through industrial activity, will be available through our website within the next few months.

Meanwhile, stay healthy and happy!

References

(1) Thomas, C. R. and Kelley, T. R.; A brief review of silicosis in the United States. Environ. Health Insights, May 18, 4, 21-26, 2010.
Abstract available online at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20523881
Full article available online at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2879610/pdf/ehi-2010-021.pdf
(2) Suarthana, E. et al; Coal workers’ pneumoconiosis in the United States: regional differences 40 years after implementation of the 1969 Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act. Occup. Environ. Med., Epublication, May 19, 2011.
Abstract available online at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21597107
(3) Jamrozik, E.; de Klerk, N. and Musk, A. W.; Asbestos-related disease. Intern. Med. J., 41 (5), 372-380, 2011.
Abstract available online at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21309996
(4) Happo, M. S. et al; Dose and time dependency of inflammatory responses in the mouse lung to urban air coarse, fine, and ultrafine particles from six European cities. Inhal. Toxicol., 19 (3), 227-246, 2007.
Abstract available online at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17365027
(5) Lin, W. et al; Acute Respiratory Inflammation in Children and Black Carbon in Ambient Air before and during the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Environ. Health Perspect., 119 (10), 1507-1512, 2011.
Abstract available online at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21642045
Full article available online at: http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info:doi/10.1289/ehp.1103461
(6) Andersen, Z. J. et al; Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and long-term exposure to traffic-related air pollution: a cohort study. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., 183 (4), 455-461, 2011.
Abstract available online at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20870755
(7) Simkhovich, B. Z.; Kleinman, M. T. and Kloner, R. A.; Particulate air pollution and coronary heart disease. Curr. Opin. Cardiol., 24 (6), 604-609, 2009.
Abstract available online at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19696664
(8) Kelly, F. J. and Fussell, J. C.; Air pollution and airway disease. Clin. Exp. Allergy, 41 (8), 1059-1071, 2011.
Abstract available online at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21623970

I’m sure you’ve heard the phrase:

“If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem.”

While we all care about health and the environment, caught up in our daily lives it’s often too hard to think about how to become part of the solution. The children are fighting and late for school; the baby’s just upended his porridge bowl on his head again and the dog’s been sick on the carpet. So how do you find time to make the shift and become part of the solution with so much on your plate? And what happens when you aren’t even aware you are part of the problem? So what can you do and what was it about my meal at the Locavore restaurant that got me thinking? Before I can answer these questions we need some background.

Locavore is a new word. While the Oxford American Dictionary named it Word Of The Year in 2007(1), most people won’t know what it means. While a herbivore eats plants and a carnivore eats meat, a locavore eats food grown locally, within their geographic region. Particularly, foods produced within a 160 km (100 mile) radius.

I’ve been a supporter of eating locally for years. I eat fruit and vegetables in season, grow my own, frequent farmers’ markets, community collectives and buy local produce whenever I can.

So why eat local? First up, it should be fresher. In season food picked yesterday from across the street is going to be fresher than food picked weeks or months ago, kept in refrigerated cold stores and shipped across the globe. Buying local also supports local jobs and keeps money in the community. And there’s another consideration: Foods grown locally don’t have to travel as far and so have a lower potential environmental impact. These transportation costs and their associated environmental impact are seldom discussed and certainly, never mentioned either on the packaging or the labelling in the store. It’s all about Food Miles. Food Miles are a measure of how far food travels from where it is produced to where it is eaten. We’ll come back to them…

How you go about being a locavore depends on where you live. If you are snow bound for 6 months, then what can be grown and what you can source around you will be quite different from someone living in a temperate or tropical region. Nevertheless, the concept has gained widespread appeal. For example, the Noma restaurant in Copenhagen embraces the locavore ideas and principles and sources much of its produce from the local countryside. Earlier this year it was voted the world’s best restaurant for the second year in a row at the annual S. Pellegrino awards run by Restaurant magazine (2). A quick search of the Internet will yield many well-regarded restaurants around the globe embracing the locavore concept.

So what does it take to be a locavore? Being a locavore means eating things not just grown locally but also suited to the local conditions. Let’s look at the “can be grown locally” part first. If you are going to eat things grown locally, then it is important to know the local soils have a good balance of essential minerals. If the soil in a particular region is naturally deficient in selenium or zinc for example, then foods grown on that soil will also be potentially deficient in selenium or zinc. And if the selenium or zinc isn’t in the food, it won’t get into you! It is also important to grow foods suited to the local climate. You wouldn’t grow rice in a low rainfall area for example, or lamb in the north of Scotland, where the barns have to be heated in winter. The last thing about being a locavore is to get over being a locavore! If you like coffee for example and live where I do, (Adelaide, South Australia), then it’s going to be a very long time between drinks because there aren’t a lot of coffee plantations within a 160 km (100 mile) radius of Adelaide. So if you can’t get everything you need from within 160 km (100 miles), you can at least source as much as you can nearby. And for the things not produced locally, you buy from sources as close to you as you can. In my case, this would be coffee from other parts of Australia or New Guinea, rather than coffee from Columbia or Ethiopia. So the simplest way of getting your head around the locavore concept is to eat locally grown foods in season.

So while the logic and ethics of eating local looks sound, does it really make that much difference from an environmental standpoint? Well after speaking with Chris March and Nathan Crudden, the owners and founders of the Locavore restaurant in Stirling, I realised it had the potential to make a huge difference! In keeping with the Locavore name, wherever possible everything they serve in the restaurant is grown or produced within a 160 km (100 mile) radius. Since opening the doors in October 2007, the Locavore estimates their within 160 km (100 mile) produce sourcing policy has saved over 300,000,000 Food Kilometres (186,410,000 Food Miles). These numbers staggered me, as it’s twice the distance from the Earth to the Sun! As an insatiably curious scientist, I had to look into it.

I found some answers in the Food Miles in Australia report from the Centre for Education & Research in Environmental Strategies (CERES) (3). The study looked at the distance travelled by the items found in a typical Melbourne shopping basket. The report estimated the total distance travelled by the 29 common foodstuffs in their average shopping basket was over 70,000 km (43,500 miles), or nearly twice round the globe! And this was representative of the shopping for a week! Multiply this week after week and it comes to an estimated 3,640,000 km (2,261,800 miles) per household per year! That’s 10 times the distance from the Earth to the moon – just to get the food from where it was produced to your plate. It doesn’t take into account the energy used for refrigeration during storage and transport or the energy used to produce the food in the first place.

Sure, massive ships, trains and trucks transport vast quantities of food over large distances very efficiently. But 70,000 km (43,500 miles) or twice round the globe for a week’s worth of groceries? These numbers are mind-boggling. So let’s see if we can put them in terms we can get our heads around. How far is 70,000 km (43,500 miles) in terms of our everyday experiences, our day-to-day lives? Well for starters, it’s about as far as I drive in 5 years! Let’s stay with driving for the sake of this exercise, because its something we all do. And let’s pretend the massive ships, trains and trucks won’t be bringing the food to me this week and I have to drive the 70,000 km (43,500 miles) to collect all the food in my average Melbourne shopping basket. Well if I could travel at 100 km/hour (62 mph), the legal speed limit in most Australian states, it would take me 700 hours of continuous driving to cover 70,000 km. That’s over 29 days! So if the estimates in the Food Miles in Australia report are correct, I’d have to drive my car non-stop for a month to collect a week’s worth of food! And how much petrol or gasoline would I use? At 8.56 litres of fuel per 100 km (33 miles per gallon), my car travelling 70,000 km would use 8,178 litres (2,160 US gallons) of fuel! And if we assume my basket of food contains 25 kg (55 pounds) of food and everything I need for all the meals I prepare during the week, each of the 21 meals I eat that week would have used nearly 390 litres (103 US gallons) of petrol or gasoline to get to my plate! That’s about 5 times my body weight of gasoline for every meal of around 1 kg (2.2 pounds)! This isn’t mind-boggling any more. It’s mind-blowing!

The above calculations are not intended to be scientifically accurate or valid. They are simply an attempt to make the findings and implications of the Food Miles in Australia report understandable, to put them in terms of our day-to-day experience. In the real world, economies of scale come into effect. Even so, running the numbers on how far food is transported and the environmental costs involved is a very scary exercise because that’s where the twice round the globe, 70,000 km (43,500 miles) travelled per basket per week figure came from! For precise estimates of the energy involved in transporting our food and the assumptions and calculations used to generate them, consult the Food Miles in Australia report (3).

Given the size of the problem, there’s certainly a lot of scope to become part of the solution! So what to do? Well if you want to reduce your environmental impact with minimal effort then think about becoming a locavore where you can. It’s very easy to do and makes sense for a host of social, health and environmental reasons. It also makes sense to get behind those who are supporting the initiative. If you are interested in learning more about the eat local / Food Miles debate, have a look at the references in the Food Miles in Australia report (3).

So I applaud the owners and staff of the Locavore restaurant in Stirling for making me think, living their principles and for being the inspiration for this blog (4). My challenge to you is to embrace the “Eat Local” or “100 Mile Diet” philosophy. The “100 Mile Diet” is a simple way to make a difference every day in a host of ways and move from being part of the problem to becoming part of the solution. And you’ll likely have fun doing it and eat more healthily in the process! So grow your own, swop food with your friends and neighbours, join a community growers’ collective, find a local farmers’ market or a store specialising in local produce and get out there and find the foods and food producers near you. They will be there and if your experience is similar to mine, you may be in for a very pleasant and tasty surprise. Bon Appetit!

Until next time, stay happy and healthy.

References

(1) Oxford Word Of The Year: Locavore http://blog.oup.com/2007/11/locavore/
(2) Wallop, H.: Noma in Copenhagen named best restaurant in the world. The Telegraph, Tuesday 20 September 2011.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/foodanddrinknews/7635378/Noma-in-Copenhagen-named-best-restaurant-in-the-world.html
(3) Abraham, A. B. and Gaballa, S.: Food Miles in Australia: A Preliminary Study of Melbourne Victoria. Published by Centre for Education & Research in Environmental Strategies (CERES) July 2007 and updated March 2008.
Available online at: http://www.ceres.org.au/sites/default/files/CERES_Report_%20Food_Miles_in_Australia_March08.pdf
(4) Declaration: Promoting Good Health has no financial or commercial interest in the Locavore restaurant in Stirling and received no payment or inducement to write this article.

The truth is they are both! Some fats are good for us and some are bad. There are literally dozens, even hundreds of different substances present in our food and in our bodies, which could be called fats. Far from being villains, fats are essential in a whole range of vital processes within our bodies. Without them, we wouldn’t survive. They are major structural components of our cells, vital to keeping the cell intact. They are the basic framework of every tissue and organ; a major fuel for the heart and a reserve source of fuel for many of our other bodily functions. They are essential for the function of our nervous system, providing much of the chemical “insulation” or myelin covering our nerves. Many of the vitamins are fats, while other fats such as ubiquinone are essential for the generation of energy from food. Many hormones are made from fats while others are converted into a staggering variety of hormone-like substances termed “eicosanoids” with potent effects on the function of different organs, including the immune system. Other fats are protective and act as antioxidants. Some fats are even classed as “essential fats” because we cannot make them ourselves, so must get them in our diet. And if we don’t get them in our diet, we get sick. Even cholesterol, that most “evil” of fats, is an essential part of every tissue and organ and is the basic building block for many of our hormones and for the bile acids, which assist our digestion. Cholesterol is made into vitamin D, which is important for the nervous and immune systems and for regulating cell growth. Hardly the actions of a villain! Fats also provide much of the flavour and texture to our food – they contribute to the crunchiness and taste of macadamias, the rich smoothness of avocadoes, the “mouth feel” of chocolate, the “melt-in-the-mouth” texture of pie crusts and croissants and the taste of butter. So how can fats be so maligned when they taste so good and give us so many benefits?

It really is a question of balance. Sure, too much of almost anything can be bad for us and fats are no exception. But not enough of something important is also bad for us. For example, not enough of one fat, vitamin D, may cause rickets, while insufficient vitamin A, another fat, may cause blindness. Many other fatty substances present in our food help us maintain our health and wellbeing. So if we eliminate all fat from the diet, we are also throwing away some of the good guys. Of course, we could artificially add back some of the good fats and fatty vitamins to these “no fat” foods. But this begs the question: If the fats originally in the food were good, why take them out in the first place? And what other good things were also taken out of the food to make it “no fat”? Just as importantly: How do we know the fats we have added back to the food can be taken up by our bodies as they would be in the natural, untreated food? After all, food is not just a random mass of chemicals. Our food is highly complex and organised, both structurally and chemically. Our bodies have evolved over eons to absorb and utilise food in this form. In view of the increasing variety of so-called “functional foods” available to consumers and the myriad of substances added to our food to supposedly make it healthier or better for us, it is doubtful many of the producers and manufacturers think of food in this way.

One fat has always had good press over many years. It is actually an oil – which means it is a liquid if kept in the dark in your pantry and varies in colour from gold through to green, has a delicate aroma, and been a staple food for millennia. You guessed it: Olive oil! But there are oils and oils. What is “Extra Virgin” oil? What is “pure olive oil”? What is “lite” olive oil? How is olive oil made? What is in it? Is it really a healthy oil and, if so, why? These are just some of the questions answered in the new Promoting Good Health e-book “Olive Oil: Everything You Would Like to Know”, available from this website.

Meanwhile, stay healthy and happy!

The word “sugar” is normally associated with sucrose, a naturally occurring carbohydrate found in large amounts in sugar cane and sugar beet. Almost all the worlds sugar comes from these two plants: ~70 % from sugar cane and ~30 % from sugar beet. While there are many different carbohydrates, what we commonly call sugar is made up of two components – glucose and fructose, which joined together, form sucrose. Sucrose, fructose and glucose are found in many fruits. For example, bananas and apples, two of the most popular fruits, contain around 12% and 10% respectively of these mixed sugars. Lactose is another sugar, made up of glucose and galactose and is found in breast milk and cow’s milk (1, 2). This is the sugar people are talking about when they are “Lactose intolerant”.

All of these “sugars” are used as nutrients by the body. Glucose is particularly important, as it is the energy currency of living things and an important fuel for many of our body processes. Without it, we wouldn’t survive.

Because our bodies know how important sugar is for energy, we are hard wired to eat them. In fact, some people find them irresistible. Why? Because they taste sweet. When we eat sugars they bind to special proteins called “receptors” in our mouth. The receptors give the sensation of sweetness, which, for most people, is highly desirable and hard to resist. There have been many studies in both animals and humans to try to find out how this works. It appears the binding of sugar to its receptors triggers pleasurable effects in the brain, which may explain why we find it hard to resist sweet foods (3). Substances other than sugar can also induce the sensation of sweetness. Indeed, many of the well-known ones like aspartame and saccharin are used as artificial sweeteners to substitute for sugar in some processed foods and drinks, particularly “diet” drinks.

Honey is around 80 % sugar, while fresh fruit contains around 8 – 15% sugar. Dried fruit has a lot more for obvious reasons. However, most of the other fresh food we eat contains little sugar. Cow’s milk has about 4% sugar while there is little sugar in fresh meat. Most vegetables contain at most a few percent, while nuts and legumes may contain up to 5% (2). Processed foods on the other hand are loaded with sugar. Nutritionists call this added sugar “non milk extrinsic sugars” (NMES). Examples of the sugar content of some common processed foods are:

• Breakfast cereals (up to 20% or more)
• Soft drinks (up to 10%)
• Sweetened milk drinks and yoghurt (up to 10%)
• Cakes (up to 30%)
• Biscuits (up to 25%)
• Sweetened yoghurts (up to 20%)
• Ice cream (up to 22%)

Even though pork itself has virtually no sugar, processed pork such as ham and bacon contains significant amounts of sugar (up to 3%) – even more if they have been honey or sugar cured. Considering most people add sugar to their tea or coffee, it doesn’t take a degree in mathematics to work out someone eating a lot of processed food may consume 150 grams (5.3 ounces) of sugar a day or more! Surveys of food intake in children and adolescents have confirmed this estimate and shown perhaps as much as a fifth of all calories consumed are derived from sugars added to processed foods. Fortunately, more recent studies suggest this may be an overestimate (5).

Now what does this mean in terms of how much sugar is being consumed? If the average energy intake per day for 12 – 17 year old boys is around 2,000 calories (4) and every gram of sugar produces about 4 calories of energy (actually 4.18), a fifth of the daily energy requirement is about 400 calories or nearly 100 grams (3.5 ounces) of sugar per day. A liter (quart) of some carbonated soft drinks contains nearly that alone! And as these figures are averages, it is likely some boys would consume even more. This works out to be almost a small teacup full of sugar – each and every day! So if the song in the film “Mary Poppins” says a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down, it seems many of us need a teacupful of sugar to help our food go down!

The manufacturers and retailers of processed foods are well aware of our craving for sugar and the “sugar rush” it creates in many people. It’s precisely why they add sugar to so many of their products. How much soft drink or ice cream would you buy if all sugar or artificial sweeteners were removed? There is little doubt most consumers have become accustomed to the taste of the sugar in the foods they buy. Indeed our craving for sugar probably started for most of us with the soft drinks, chocolates, cakes and sweets of childhood. And by the time we became adults we were hooked. This will be obvious to anyone who has gone on a weight loss diet and tried to reduce their sugar intake. Any addiction is hard to break and it is difficult for us to adhere to a low sugar diet.

So what if our children consume so much added sugar? Does it really matter? Well more and more research is showing it matters a lot. The Western world is seeing an epidemic of obesity, particularly in children. In the US the total economic cost of obesity is estimated at US$99 billion per year. In Australia, around two-thirds of adult men and over half the adult women are overweight or obese, adding over $1.2 billion per year to our bill. There is considerable evidence to show you get fat by eating sugar and especially the sugars in processed foods. We know a high calorie intake; excess sugar consumption and spending hours in front of a computer or video game can lead to obesity. More and more research is showing obesity is a significant health risk for a number of degenerative diseases, in some cases greater than smoking (6 – 9):

• Asthma
• Certain cancers
• Diabetes
• Emotional and psychological problems
• Heart disease
• Reduced lifespan
• Tooth decay

We know a high calorie intake; excess sugar consumption and a sedentary lifestyle can lead to obesity. This in turn is thought to increase the risk of various degenerative diseases such as cancer, heart disease and diabetes (6 – 8). There is also good evidence excess sugar consumption, particularly through sweetened drinks, can contribute to tooth decay (dental caries) (9).

There are also concerns the calorie rich processed foods we eat are nutritionally poor. Much of the energy in processed foods comes from the added sugar, which has limited nutrient value. A diet high in processed foods may result in nutrient deficiencies for trace elements and unstable vitamins and phytonutrients. After all, if you are getting your energy from a calorie-rich and nutrient poor carbonated soft drink containing loads of added sugar for example, you may not be eating enough of the nutrient rich foods to compensate and give you your daily requirements. Finally, all added sugars classified as NMES are not the same. Some, like fructose, which is being added as high fructose syrups to all manner of foods as a cheaper alternative to sucrose, may cause gastrointestinal distress, particularly if ingested in large amounts (10).

Promoting Good Health believes there is no substitute for fresh food. If consumers do purchase processed food, they need to be aware of what has been added to it. Reading the labels will give you clues. Salt and sugar are often added to processed foods in amounts much greater than those in fresh food. In view of the concerns about the possible health effects of excess salt and sugar, it is best to choose foods low in added salt and sugar whenever possible. In addition to salt and sugar, processed foods also contain a wide variety of other additives like artificial sweeteners, colors, preservatives, emulsifying agents, antioxidants and flavor enhancers to name but a few. And there are also concerns about the possible health effects of many of these additives. So you need to be careful.

We have repeatedly expressed our concerns over the potential health effects of the chemicals used to produce our food and the additives used to process them. You can find more on these topic in other blogs on this website and in the publications in the growing Promoting Good Health series, available through the online store.

Meanwhile stay healthy and happy!

References

(1) http://www.nal.usda.gov
(2) Garrow, J.S. et al; Human Nutrition and Dietetics. 4th Edition. Published by Churchill Livingstone, 2000.
(3) McCaughey, S.A.; The taste of sugars. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 32 (5), 1024-1043, 2008.
Abstract available online at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18499254
Full article available online at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2447812/pdf/nihms56303.pdf
(4) http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/sugarintakescot2008rep.pdf
(5) Welsh, J.A. et al; Consumption of added sugars is decreasing in the United States. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. July 13, 2011. E-Pub ahead of print
Abstract available online at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21753067
(6) Chen, L. et al; Reducing consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages is associated with reduced blood pressure: a prospective study among United States adults. Circulation, 121 (22), 2398-2406, 2010.
Abstract available online at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20497980
Full article available online at: http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/121/22/2398.full.pdf
(7) Welsh, J.A. et al; Consumption of added sugars and indicators of cardiovascular disease risk among US adolescents. Circulation 123 (3), 249-257, 2011.
Abstract available online at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21220734
(8) Malik, V.S. et al; Sugar-sweetened beverages and risk of metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis. Diabetes Care, 33 (11), 2477-2483, 2010.
Abstract available online at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20693348
Full article available online at: http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/33/11/2477.full.pdf
(9) Lee, J.G. and Brearley Messer, L.J.; Contemporary fluid intake and dental caries in Australian children. Aust. Dent. J., 56 (2), 122-131, 2011.
Abstract available online at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21623802
(10) Beyer, P.L. et al (2005) Fructose intake at current levels in the United States may cause gastrointestinal distress in normal adults. Am. Diet Assoc., 105 (10), 1559-1066, 2005.
Abstract available online at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16183355

Shortly after I bought the peanut butter, I had a visit from my grandchildren both of whom love peanut butter. Imagine my surprise then when they would not eat the peanut butter in the glass jar I had bought. They both said it had no taste! This got me thinking. Scientists are like that. What was different about the peanut butter in the glass jar? Fortunately I had another jar of peanut butter in the cupboard, in a plastic container. When I gave this peanut butter to my grandchildren they took to it with some relish. So what was different between the two different peanut butters?

I suspected there was something in one of the peanut butters not in the other. An examination of the two labels soon confirmed this. The peanut butter in the glass jar, was labeled as “naturally chemical and preservative free”. It contained 100% roasted peanuts and apparently, nothing else. On the other hand, the peanut butter in the plastic container, also labeled as “no artificial colors, flavors, or preservatives” contained not just freshly roasted peanuts (90%) but vegetable oil, sugar, and salt. So the peanut paste in the glass jar was just peanuts, while the peanut paste in the plastic container was a mixture of peanuts, an unidentified oil, sugar and salt. Further enquiry revealed the unidentified oil was canola oil, a variety of rapeseed and 3 grams of sugar and nearly 600 milligrams of salt had been added for every 100 grams. It is unlikely the difference in flavor detected by my grandchildren was the canola oil, which has a fairly bland taste, so it was most likely the added sugar and salt.

So what if there is added salt and sugar in peanut butter? After all, the average amount of peanut butter put onto a slice of bread is not very great and the sugar and salt content is a lot less than, for example, the sugar we add to our tea or coffee, or the salt we add to a plate of food we have prepared in our own kitchen. The real issue is one of control. When we prepare food, we are in control of what we add to it. However if it has been added to the food before we get to it, there is nothing we can do. Someone else is in control. Why do food manufacturers and retailers believe a natural and healthy food like peanut butter has to be tampered with to create something more satisfying for consumers? And it is not just peanut butter but most processed food, whether it is breakfast cereal, baked beans, hot dogs, or cold meats have salt and sugar added to it. Of course, if children start eating processed food containing extra salt and sugar from an early age, they get used to the taste and it becomes the norm for them – perhaps for the rest of their life! For many, once hooked on lots of salt and sugar in their food, and particularly from an early age, it becomes very difficult to reduce their intake because food seems to lack taste or they need the sugar rush.

For now we’ll just concentrate on salt – we will discuss added sugar some other time. You can get an idea of how much salt is present in a food by looking at the sodium content shown on the food labels. While the sodium content of fresh food, such as beef, fish, vegetables, fruit or milk, is rarely greater than about 90 milligrams per 100 grams, the corresponding values for processed foods can be as high as 1,400 milligrams per 100 grams. The highest sodium content I came across was in one brand of prosciutto, a type of bacon, with a value of 2,240 mg per 100 grams (most bacon is over 1,000 mg). This is a truly amazing amount and more than 30 times greater than the 50-80 milligrams of sodium present in the fresh pork from whence it came. And let us not forget:

Soy sauce, with a sodium content of more than 6,000 milligrams per 100 grams.

British marmite, a yeast extract spread popular with children, with a sodium content of more than 3,000 milligrams per 100 grams.

It is easy to see how, in the diet is rich in processed food, the intake of salt can reach levels many times the Reference Nutrient Intake (RNI) for sodium of around 1,600 milligrams per day, the amount considered sufficient to sustain normal health and wellbeing (2).

So, why is the extra salt in processed food a problem? Well, there is considerable evidence that high salt intake is a factor in the development of hypertension (high blood pressure) and this in turn can increase the risk of heart and kidney diseases, stroke, and perhaps gastric cancer (3, 4). There are also some indications salt can contribute to some of symptoms of Meniere’s disease, a disorder of the inner ear, which can give rise to deafness, tinnitus and severe vertigo (5). The problem of excessive salt intake worldwide has been recognized by various world and national government agencies, such as the World Health Organization, the UK Food Standards Agency, and the US Federal Drug Administration Agency (FDA) (6, 7). Given the convincing evidence for the potentially harmful long term effects of high salt consumption, it makes sense to reduce your intake of processed foods and, where possible, eat fresh food instead. However, if you do buy processed food, you would be wise to look closely at the sodium content and other the other information provided on food labels. In doing so, you and not the retailer or manufacturer, decides what is best for you.

Meanwhile, stay happy and healthy!

References

(1) USDA / ARS Nutrient Data Laboratory: USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference. The USDA National Nutrient Database is available online at: http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/
(2) Garrow, J. S.; James, W. P. T. and Ralph, A.; Human Nutrition and Dietetics. 10th edition. Churchill Livingstone. 2000.
(3) He, F. J. and MacGregor, G. A.; J. Hum. Hypertens., 23, 363-384, 2009.
Abstract available online at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19110538
(4) Wang, X. Q.; et al World J. Gastroenterol., 15, 2204-2213, 2009.
Abstract available online at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19437559
Full article available online at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2682234/pdf/WJG-15-2204.pdf
(5) http://www.menieresinfo.com/treatment.html#treatment-dietary-lifestyle
(6) http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/evm_sodiumchloride.pdf
(7) http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm181577.htm

There is also no doubt some of the environmental chemicals we are exposed to in our every day lives are harmful if taken in large enough amounts. Certainly, many of the pesticides, metals such as arsenic, lead and mercury and a great number of the industrial waste products are considered toxic. Yet governments believe in the amounts we are exposed to, they do not pose a risk to our health. The main reason for this – and this applies to most environmental chemicals – is the amounts finding their way into our bodies are so minute it is difficult to see how they can be harmful. Unfortunately, it may not be this simple. There is plenty of evidence – from reputable medical and scientific sources – to show tiny amounts of enviromental chemicals and pollutants can produce quite unexpected effects. A good example is the well known herbicide, glyphosate – commonly called Roundup®. At the amounts suggested by the manufacturers, it is highly toxic to broad leaf plants but apparently safe to humans. But a surprisingly different effect has been observed at concentrations much lower than those required to kill weeds. At these tiny non-toxic doses, like those generated by the drift of glyphosate spray from neighbouring farms, the herbicide may actually stimulate growth of certain plants (7). Another example is the antioxidant resveratrol, present in food and abundant in red wine. Its presence in red wine is thought by some to explain the “French paradox” – ie the apparently low incidence of heart disease in the French despite a relatively high intake of butter and cream. At higher concentrations, resveratrol can kill a variety of different cancer cells. This is the good news. However, the bad news is at much lower doses, the antioxidant may actually stimulate tumour growth, at least in the test tube (8).

So, these examples show we cannot always predict what a chemical substance will do at very low concentrations. Some scientists refer to this phenomenon as “hormesis”(8). While there was initially a fair amount of skepticism amongst scientists over this, there is increasing acceptance there is a degree of unpredictability about how chemicals can affect biological systems at low concentrations. Indeed, this unpredictability is a good example of what Donald Rumsfeld, the former US Defence Secretary termed “a known unknowns” in his now infamous press briefing of February 12, 2002.

But wait: It’s even more complicated than this!

While small amounts of certain chemicals can produce significant effects on their own and sometimes the effects may be unexpected, what happens if we are exposed to mixtures of tiny amounts of different chemicals, each with their own effects? This is important because, our food and water and the air we breathe, contains a cocktail of different substances and pollutants. We already know certain chemical mixtures can act synergistically with each other. “Synergism” is when the combined effects of two or more substances is much greater than would be expected from the activity produced by each of the individual substances. A bit like 1 + 1 = 5. The phenomenon of synergism has been well known for many years and can explain the serious side effects from certain drug interactions. Synergistic effects have also been observed in the immune system. Here, exceedingly small amounts of bacterial cell remnants, (even in the fractions of a microgram range), can work with certain proteins produced naturally in the body to trigger massive responses (9).

There is evidence “pesticide cocktails” can act synergistically on animals (10), so it is likely various pollutants will also act synergistically in humans.

So just because there are only trace amounts of environmental chemicals in our food, water and air in amounts considered harmless, it does not necessarily follow they really are totally inert and harmless. The number and diversity of chemicals in our bodies is significant and, with the increasing industrialisation of two of the most populous countries on the planet (India and China), it will doubtless increase unless steps are taken to regulate their release.

Now before we become too neurotic about it, it should be emphasised we are not totally defenseless against this chemical burden because each of us have exquisite mechanisms for getting rid of potentially harmful substances. Our organs, particularly our livers, have the capacity to detoxify the chemicals we come in contact with, while our kidneys work very hard to excrete what may harm us in the urine. If the body does not know what to do with them it can even remove them from our blood and store them in certain parts of our bodies like our hair and fat, where they are less likely to cause harm. Despite this, the daily chemical assault on our bodies is relentless and ongoing. The worry for us is this chemical assault has the potential to do harm and may, in ways we do not understand, even threaten those systems in our bodies like the immune and gene repair systems, which correct and heal any damage.

So called “environmental factors” have been thought to contribute to degenerative diseases like cancer, heart disease, Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, chronic fatigue syndrome etc. We know these factors can include viruses, bacteria, diet, UV radiation, radioactivity and exposure to certain chemicals like tobacco, alcohol and asbestos. What we do not know is what effect the small- and long-term doses of environmental chemicals may have in causing disease, which is where Mr Rumsfeld’s “known unknowns” come in. There is certainly increasing evidence they do. A recent publication has received the support of the American Heart Association, which reported air pollution can contribute to cardiovascular disease (11). There is yet other evidence of a link between air pollution and respiratory diseases (12). The jury is still out on whether the small amounts of chemicals in our food and water contribute to disease. It should be remembered however, it was a long time before we were certain the chemicals in tobacco smoke contributed to lung cancer. Because we do not know, it makes sense to reduce our exposure to environmental chemicals as much as we can. There are ways to do this, some of which have been mentioned in our earlier blogs. More detailed information is also available in two books available for purchase through this website (“The Silent Threat” and “Organic Food: A Guide for Consumers”). A sequel to “The Silent Threat” is also in preparation and will be published on this website in the next few months. In this coming book we will discuss the pollutants released from different human activities like industry, mining, manufacturing and in the workplace and examine the evidence for their effects on our health.

Meanwhile, stay happy and healthy!

References

(1) Hamlin, H. J. and Guillette, L. J., Syst Biol Reprod Med 56, 113-121, 2010.
Abstract available online at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20377310
(2) Sharma, C. M., et al; Environ. Pollut. 157, 2452-2458, 2009.
Abstract available online at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19329237
(3) Ikonomou, M. G., et al; Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 30, 1261-1271, 2011.
Abstract available online at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21360729
(4) Ekino, S., et al; J. Neurol. Sci., 262, 131-144, 2007.
Abstract available online at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17681548
(5) Garrow, J. S., et al; Human Nutrition and Dietetics. 10th Edition. Published by Churchill Livingstone, 2000.
(6) Toxins of Biological Origin; Environmental Health and Safety, University of Florida.
Available online at: http://www.ehs.ufl.edu/bio/toxin.htm
(7) Velini, E. D., et al; Pest. Manag. Sci., 64, 489-496, 2008.
Abstract available online at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18293284
(8) Calabrese, E. J. et al; Hum. Exp. Toxicol., 29, 980-1015, 2010.
Abstract available online at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21115559
and
Calabrese, E. J. et al; Hum. Exp. Toxicol., 29, 1034-1037, 2010.
Abstract available online at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21115567
(9) Rothstein, J. L. and Schreiber, H.; Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 85, 607-611, 1988.
Abstract available online at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3422444
Full text available online at: http://www.pnas.org/content/85/2/607.long
(10) Nørgaard, K. B. and Cedergreen, N.; Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int., 17, 957-967, 2010.
Abstract available online at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20077025
(11) Brook, R. D., et al; Circulation 121, 2331-2378, 2010.
Abstract available online at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20458016
Full text available online at: http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/reprint/121/21/2331
(12) Faustini, A., et al; Eur. Respir. J., January 11, 2011 (Epub ahead of print).
Abstract available online at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21233266
(13) What fish should pregnant women avoid? U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), March 2004.
FDA / EPA Health Advisory available online at: http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/Product-SpecificInformation/Seafood/ConsumerInformationAboutSeafood/ucm122607.htm

“No degree of prosperity could justify the accumulation of large amounts of highly toxic substances which nobody knows how to make “safe” and which remain an incalculable danger to the whole of creation….”

The “substances” Schumacher was referring to were the radioactive waste products generated by the nuclear power industry. We will discuss the nuclear power industry and the background and implications of the full Schumacher quote at another time. Nevertheless, this quote equally applies to the great number of highly toxic chemical pollutants realeased into the environment on a daily basis through human activities. And as they have also not been “made safe” before release, they pose a potential threat to our health and wellbeing. Rather than accepting responsibility for cleaning up our messes, we either rely on nature to make them “safe” for us or hope we are diluting them enough to make them safe by dumping them into something as large as a river or ocean: The “Dilution is the solution to pollution” approach. Certainly, many of the toxic chemicals from industrial and agricultural waste products are gradually degraded into less toxic materials by nature, either through chemical processes, like heat, light and UV radiation, or through the action of microorganisms in the soil or water. But is it really this simple?

Of course there are a number of important assumptions we make about this whole process. First, we assume there is negligible impact on the environment while nature detoxifies our waste products for us. We know this is not true as there are numerous examples of the harmful effects of our waste products on living organisms (1). After all, if we use, for example, chemical sprays to kill insects or fungal pests, it is not surprising there is – in a phrase so beloved by the military – “collateral damage”. These sprays do not discriminate between pests and non pests and therefore may and do kill beneficial organisms as well. A second assumption is whatever we release into the environment will be broken down fairly rapidly before it causes any harm. Unfortunately, this isn’t necessarily true either as some substances are degraded very slowly or not at all. Some examples include the polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), the polybrominated dipheyl ethers (PBDEs), organochlorine pesticides like DDT and heavy metals like lead and mercury to name but a few (2, 3 and 4). Radioactive pollutants like those released from Chernobyl and, more recently, Fukushima also fit into this category. And while microorganisms may be able to chemically alter radioactive pollutants, whatever chemical form they are in is still radioactive, sometimes for decades or generations to come. The problem with these more resistant substances is they can be taken up by both marine and land animals as food and so can enter our food chain (4). Indeed, through the phenomenon of biomagnification, there can be a significant build up of toxic substances in the tissues of animals we rely on for food, particularly fish. So much so as to cause poisoning (eg mercury poisoning in Minamata, Japan, 4). Sadly, these are not isolated incidents with governments advising certain vulnerable members of the community, in particular pregnant women and nursing mothers, to restrict their intake of certain foods because of the potential health effects of heavy metal contamination (13).

Yet another assumption we make needs exploring. This assumption is even the pollutants which are not degraded are present in amounts so small compared to the vastness of the planet, they could not possubly have any impact on humans. Is it really true tiny amounts of chemicals are without any effect? The answer to this question is an emphatic no. The power of how tiny amounts of substances can produce dramatic effects on us was very well illustrated on a recent trip to the country when we stopped at a farm and bought a punnet of strawberries which we put on the back seat of the car. Within minutes, the fragrant smell of fresh strawberries filled the car. Of course, this phenomenon is not unique to strawberries but can be observed with many different fruits. The volatile constituents of fruit, some of which provide the characteristic smell, are released in tiny amounts into the air. From there they enter the nasal passages where they bind to special receptors triggering signals which are sent to the brain. Providing we have a normal sense of smell, the brain is able to identify the source and induce the appropriate physiological responses in the body. What is particularly interesting is it requires only tiny amounts of the volatile chemicals from the strawberries to set the process off, perhaps as little as millionths of a gram. And yet, these tiny amounts of volatile chemicals set up a whole cascade of biochemical and physiological processes in my wife and I, cascades many times larger than the original signals which set them off. We both started to salivate, our stomachs rumbled and our hunger intensified so much the strawberries never made it home!

There are many other examples of how small amounts of chemicals can produce significant effects. While everyone knows how important vitamins are to keeping us healthy, most people would be surprised to learn how little we need on a daily basis to do thye job. For example: Around 2-3 micrograms (a microgram is a millionth of a gram and much smaller than the head of a pin) of vitamin B12 on a daily basis is enough to keep us from developing a form of anaemia; 5 micrograms of vitamin D daily is sufficient to prevent rickets (a bone disease) in children; and 10-20 micrograms of vitamin K is enough to prevent bleeding in very young children (5). Conversely, people would also be surprised to learn how little of certain poisons are required to cause illness. For example, one microgram or less of the botulism or tetanus toxins is sufficient to cause harm or even death (6). There are other, more common examples of how small amounts of chemicals have the potential to cause harm or even death. People with severe allergies to certain foods may need to eat as little as a few milligrams (thousandths of a gram) of peanuts, egg or milk to cause a potentially fatal reaction. The actual amount of chemicals responsible for triggering these responses is much less than this of course, perhaps in the tens of microgram range, because the active component in the food causing the allergy, mostly a protein, may only be a very small proportion of the food components. There is therefore no question amounts of chemicals we consider tiny do have the potential to keep us healthy or even kill us. It all depends on the nature of the chemical, the length of time we are exposed (smoking and asbestos exposure are good examples of the influence of time) and the various bodily processes it affects. So small dose exposure of some things can be lethal.

In Part II of this blog, we will look at the unexpected and unpredictable effects of some of these environmental pollutants.

Until Part II, stay happy and healthy.

References

(1) Hamlin, H. J. and Guillette, L. J., Syst Biol Reprod Med 56, 113-121, 2010.
Abstract available online at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20377310
(2) Sharma, C. M., et al; Environ. Pollut. 157, 2452-2458, 2009.

Abstract available online at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19329237
(3) Ikonomou, M. G., et al; Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 30, 1261-1271, 2011.

Abstract available online at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21360729
(4) Ekino, S., et al; J. Neurol. Sci., 262, 131-144, 2007.

Abstract available online at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17681548
(5) Garrow, J. S., et al; Human Nutrition and Dietetics. 10th Edition. Published by Churchill Livingstone, 2000.
(6) Toxins of Biological Origin; Environmental Health and Safety, University of Florida.

Available online at: http://www.ehs.ufl.edu/bio/toxin.htm

Japan is a proud and resilient nation. They will rebuild; they have done it before. In time and with human effort and commitment, life will return to normal. Or will it? The earthquake and tsunami of March 11 is fundamentally different to any disaster Japan has suffered before. It is fundamentally different because none of the previous disasters caused a leak in a nuclear power plant, releasing radiation to contaminate the environment. As a result, there may well be large parts of Japan where life can never return, let alone return to normal.

I won’t discuss the wisdom of building nuclear reactors on the coast of an earthquake and tsunami prone country or whether we should embrace uranium and plutonium to satisfy our growing lust for energy. I’ll leave that topic for another time. What I want to talk about today is what the radioactive material leaking from the damaged Fukushima reactors means for living systems and public health. And I also want to talk about the mixed or downright misleading information coming from the mass media.

On April 12, 2011, the disaster at the Fukushima power plant was categorised at Level 7 by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) – the highest level for a nuclear accident and the same rating given to the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in the Ukraine. While some have argued it does not deserve this Level 7 rating, others have said it is already worse than Chernobyl, or soon will be (1). Either way it is a moot point. The situation is both bad and serious and arguing over the semantics won’t change a thing.

Because you can measure radioactive contamination, it is easy to track. What was frightening was how quickly and how far the radiation leaking from the damaged Fukushima plants spread and how quickly it made its way into the food chain. Within days of the disaster, radioactivity 5 to 7 times higher than the officially permissible levels were detected in milk and spinach near the Fukushima plant. Radioactivity was also detected in Tokyo’s water supply, 230 km away (140 miles).

Radiation from the Fukushima power plant has since gone around the globe. Radioactive isotopes consistent with those released from a damaged nuclear reactor have been detected in rain, water and milk samples across the United States (2).

Water heavily contaminated with radioactivity has also been released into the Pacific Ocean. It is already showing up in fish off the Japanese coast making them unfit to eat. They will remain unfit to eat for years to come. And as the Kuroshio ocean current off the coast of Japan mixes with the North Pacific Current, the Alaskan current and the California current, the radioactivity will ultimately be carried around the world. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), over one billion people rely on fish as their primary source of animal protein (3).

It is important to remember any other pollutant released into the environment will behave in exactly the same way and spread just as widely and as quickly, ending up in the food chain. However because they are not radioactive, we are not aware it is happening.

The head of Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), who operate the Fukushima plants, recently admitted it would be at least 3 months before they could stop radiation leaking from the plant into the environment. It will likely take them 9 months to effect a “cold shutdown” of the facility (10). And that’s if things go according to plan. Few expect they will.

The most worrying reports of all are the admissions Uranium and Plutonium were released from the damaged Fukushima plant (4 and 9) and may have been atomised during the explosion of reactor No. 3 on March 13, 2011 and released into the atmosphere (6).

That radioactivity will be released into the air and oceans for months to come means the Fukushima disaster is everyone’s problem. All the air and oceans of the world are connected and fundamental to the food chain. Many of the isotopes released will remain radioactive for years and affect generations to come. The world is not the same place it was before March 11, 2011. If we are to stay healthy in this new world, we will have to be aware of how the world has changed.

The first thing you need to know is not all radioactive isotopes are the same or behave the same way in the body. The potential risks posed by a radioactive isotope depends on three things:

1. The physical, chemical and radiological characteristics of the isotope;
2. How the isotope is taken up by the body, where it goes in the body and how long it stays there;
3. How old you are. Children are at more risk than adults and an unborn foetus, even more.

Radioactive Iodine concentrates in the thyroid gland for example, while radioactive Caesium distributes more evenly throughout the body. That some radioisotopes concentrate in certain organs or as you move up the food chain means the biologically relevant level of contamination may be far more than the simple numbers may suggest.

So discussions about “radiation levels” are unhelpful unless they also include information on the isotopes involved. Some are worse than others; much worse…

We cannot see, smell, taste or feel radioactivity. We therefore need to rely on sensitive instruments and environmental monitoring to see it for us. And we also need to be given the results of this monitoring, together with an accurate and clear explanation of what the results mean. This currently isn’t happening. Fukushima doesn’t make the news anymore and when the subject does come up we are told any radioactivity that is present represents “no danger” to humans. This just isn’t true.

The currently accepted view is there is no safe threshold for internal radioactive contamination and that risk is directly related to dose. Any exposure has the potential to do harm. This is referred to as the “Linear no-threshold” model or LNT (7). It is also very, very important to realise the risk posed by external radiation is not the same as for internal radiation contamination. A sheet of paper will stop the radiation from an external source of Plutonium. However once Plutonium has found its way into your body, especially if inhaled as a fine dust, the cancer risk climbs dramatically (5).

We each receive around 2,400 microsieverts per year of background radiation from space, the Earth and the ingestion of the natural radioactive gas Radon (8). There is no doubt the radioactivity released from the damaged Fukushima nuclear reactors will increase the background levels of cancer for generations to come. While we do not know by how much, for those affected it will be a personal tragedy. We need to talk about what to do, not pretend everything is fine and there’s nothing to worry about.

So what can you do to protect yourself and your family? Filtering any rainwater you use; thoroughly washing leafy green vegetables; eating Siberian ginseng; eating low down on the food chain and taking mineral supplements, chelating agents, zeolite, anti-oxidants and Iodine salts – to displace any radioactive Iodine you may ingest, have all been proposed. I believe one of the best defences will be to keep your immune system at the very top of its game, as one of the jobs of your immune system is to monitor for and eliminate early cancers. How do we know this? From many studies, with one of the best known, ironically, coming from Japan (11).

We will discuss how to keep your immune system vigilant, intelligent and strong in subsequent blogs.

Promoting Good Health has just become a much more serious mission.

Until next time, stay happy and healthy!

References

(1) “URGENT: Radiation leakage may eventually exceed that of Chernobyl: TEPCO.” Kyodo News, April 12, 2011.

Available online at: http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/04/84828.html
(2) US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) RADNET. Japanese Nuclear Emergency: Radiation Monitoring. Daily Data Summary.

Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/radiation/data-updates.html
(3) Tidwell, J. H. and Allan, G. L., “Fish as food: Aquaculture’s contribution
Ecological and economic impacts and contributions of fish farming and capture fisheries.” EMBO Reports. November 15; 2 (11): 958-963, 2001.
Available online at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1084135/pdf/kve236.pdf
(4) Karlinsky, N and Tanglao, L.; “Japan Nuclear Crisis: Plutonium Leaks From Fukushima Plant ABC News International.”

Available online at: http://abcnews.go.com/International/japan-nuclear-crisis-officials-grapple-plutonium-leaks-fukushima/story?id=13244418
(5) Brown, S. C.; Schonbeck, M. F.; McClure, D.; Barón, A. E.; Navidi, W. C.; Byers, T. and Ruttenber, A. J.: “Lung Cancer and Internal Lung Doses among Plutonium Workers at the Rocky Flats Plant: A Case-Control Study.” Am. J. Epidemiol., 160 (2), 163-172, 2004.

Available online at: http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/2/163.full.pdf+html
(6) Gunderson, A.: “Gunderson Postulates Unit 3 Explosion May Have Been Prompt Criticality in Fuel Pool.” Fairewinds Associates.


Available online at: http://vimeo.com/22865967
(7) “Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII – Phase 2”
National Academy of Sciences. Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, National Research Council.
Executive Summary available online at: http://www.nap.edu/nap-cgi/report.cgi?record_id=11340&type=pdfxsum
(8) “Report of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation to the General Assembly.”

Available online at: http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/gareport.pdf
(9) guardian.co.uk: “Fukushima soil contains plutonium traces, according to Japanese officials.“


Available online at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/29/japan-fukushima-plutonium-traces-soil
(10) ABC News: “TEPCO expects nuclear ‘cold shutdown’ in 6-9 months.“


Available online at: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/04/17/3193824.htm
(11) Imai, K,; Matsuyama, S.; Miyake, S.; Suga, K. and Nakachi, K.: “Natural cytotoxic activity of peripheral-blood lymphocytes and cancer incidence: an 11-year follow-up study of a general population.” Lancet, 356 (9244), 1795-1799, 2000.

Available online at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11117911