1. Organically produced foods are no more nutritious for you than those produced using conventional agricultural methods.
2. Organically grown produce does have higher levels of certain nutrients than conventionally grown foods.
3. Organic produce has less pesticide contamination than conventionally grown crops.
4. Organic foods contain less antibiotic-resistant bacteria than do conventionally grown foods.

In the second part of this blog (6), we looked at the first of these categories: ‘Healthier for you’ – points 1. and 2. on this list – and discovered how difficult a question it was to answer. In this, the final part of this blog, we will look at the last claim made for the Stanford study: Organic food is safer for you. These are points 3. and 4. on the above list.

While it is very difficult to say organic food is healthier for you, we are on much firmer ground when asking whether it is safer for you. Here the evidence is much clearer and the interpretation much easier and cleaner.

Before going into the discussion however I need to give you a glimpse into a day in the life of a scientist.

As I have said before, we scientists are a curious and inquisitive lot who are always asking questions. We can’t help ourselves. It’s in our nature. But to get meaningful answers to the questions we ask, we have to ask the right questions and ask them in a particular way. Scientists do this by doing experiments and making observations. To get meaningful answers to their questions scientists carefully control all the conditions of an experiment, to remove all the potential variables. Under these controlled experimental conditions the scientist can then make a single change and measure the effect of that change. For example: I may be interested in finding out whether a particular chemical has an effect on the growth rate of bacteria. To find out I set up two identical test tubes of growth medium. In one tube I put the bacteria. In the other tube I put the same amount of bacteria and the chemical I want to test. I then put both tubes in a warm place and give the bacteria in the tubes time to grow. At the end of that time I measure how many bacteria have grown in each tube. If the chemical has had an effect on the growth rate of the bacteria, there will be a different number of bacteria in the two tubes. And because I have controlled the conditions of the experiment, I can conclude the chemical was responsible for the difference in the growth of the bacteria because it was the only thing that was different between the tubes. So by creating simple environments or systems they can understand and control, scientists can see what the effects are of making changes to that environment. This is why it is so difficult to answer the simple question of whether organic food is healthier for you. The conditions are just too complex and too variable to say with certainty any differences you do find are solely due to the food being grown organically or not. It could be due to other factors you hadn’t thought about or be influenced by factors you hadn’t taken into consideration or can’t allow for, or change with time.

So with this background in place, let’s look again at the last two points in the above list on the claims made for the Stanford study:

3. Organic produce has less pesticide contamination than conventionally grown crops.
4. Organic foods contain less antibiotic-resistant bacteria than do conventionally grown foods.

As organic farming does not use pesticides, it is hardly surprising foods produced organically contain less pesticide residues. So why don’t organic farms use pesticides? Before we can answer that question we need to know what a pesticide is and what it does.

The term “cide” added to the end of a word means a killer or a killing. So for example, ‘suicide’ is to kill yourself; ‘homicide’ is to murder someone else and ‘genocide’ is to murder a large number of people. A ‘pesticide’ is therefore something to kill an unwanted pest. A fungicide kills an unwanted fungus; an insecticide kills an unwanted insect; a herbicide kills an unwanted plant or weed and so on. Conventional agriculture is absolutely dependent on the widespread use of pesticides. It uses an awful lot of them. 2.3 billion kg (5.1 billion pounds) per year in the US alone as part of a global market of over $40 billion annually (12). Given how much pesticide we use it is hardly surprising our food, our bodies and our environment are contaminated with them (13).

Now we’ve covered what a pesticide is and how much we use them, we need to know why we use them and what the implications of using them are.

Pesticides are poisons used to kill an unwanted pest and in conventional agriculture they are used to stop something else eating or spoiling the food the farmer is trying to grow for you. If a pesticide is designed to kill something that wants to eat your food, why aren’t you affected when you eat the same food? There are two reasons:

• Foods sprayed with a pesticide cannot be sold for human consumption until a certain number of days or weeks have passed after spraying. This is to ensure the amount of pesticide still in the food is below a level considered “safe” for you to eat. This delay between spraying and eating is called a “withholding period”.
• The pesticide exploits something special about the biochemistry of the pest species: Some weakness or biological pathway present in the pest species that isn’t in you. So the pesticide poisons the pest and not you.

In theory, this is all well and good. But theory isn’t reality. There are a whole host of potential and practical problems in using and relying on pesticides. For example: The biochemical pathway or weakness you are exploiting in the pest may also be present in other species, species you don’t want harmed. So an insecticide to kill a particular caterpillar might also kill beneficial insects like the predatory ladybirds, or the honey bees and butterflies, responsible for pollinating our crops. Using a pesticide may therefore cause considerable collateral damage to the environment.  In many instances there is compelling evidence it does.

There is also the problem of whether the pesticide is “safe” or not. Because living systems are so complex and variable, it is impossible to come up with a pesticide that will kill 100 % of the pest species 100 % of the time at a dose that doesn’t have at least some harmful effect in species you do not want to be harmed, including you and me. So when you ask the question of whether or not a pesticide is “safe” the answer you almost invariably get is not “Yes” or “No” but “Depends”! And for many of the pesticides we rely on, we haven’t even asked the question! There are over 85,000 synthetic chemicals currently registered in the USA alone, with over 2,000 added each year. Of these chemicals only 7 % have complete toxicological information, while for over 40 % of them, we have no data at all! (7 and 8).

Synthetic chemicals are chemicals we invented, chemicals that do not exist in nature. We need to keep a healthy scepticism for chemicals nature does not use, because there may be a very good reason why.

There are a great many scientific studies, performed under rigidly controlled experimental conditions, showing synthetic pesticides previously thought “safe” do have profound health effects. Health effects you need to be concerned about. Health effects that may affect you and your family. We have repeatedly discussed a number of these studies and what “safe” means in previous Promoting Good Health blogs. Interested readers who want to explore the matter further are also directed towards Prof. Alf Poulos’s 2005 reference work “The Silent Threat”, available on this website or from Amazon and shortly, the Apple iTunes store.

Organic agriculture doesn’t use pesticides. Organic farmers believe spraying poisonous chemicals on the food we eat is not good for us nor is it good for the environment. It’s a hard attitude to argue with. Supporters of conventional agriculture counter by saying it’s only a philosophical and not a practical objection however and the dangers have either been overstated and the cost-savings of using pesticides outweigh the risks. We have discussed this here and in many previous blogs. The Stanford study is just one of many showing organically produced foods contain less pesticide residues than foods grown conventionally. We also know that some of these pesticide residues may be harmful. By eating organic produce you are therefore not putting yourself and your family in harms way.

And now we come to the last point on the list:

4. Organic foods contain less antibiotic-resistant bacteria than do conventionally grown foods.

There is a great deal I could write on this topic. Indeed, I already have. There is a three part blog on the use of antibiotics in agriculture and why it isn’t a good idea on the www.drstephenhardy.com website at the following link (11). The conclusion now is no different to when the blogs were written: Using antibiotics to produce your food is not a good idea and eating foods contaminated with antibiotic resistant microorganisms may be putting you and your family at risk.

Which brings us to the end of our story: What does the Stanford study really tell us? What are the take-home messages?

Firstly, we cannot say organic food is more nutritious or healthier for you because of what it contains. There are just too many factors involved to get a sensible answer to this question. We can however say organic food may be safer for you because of what it doesn’t contain. It does not contain traces of pesticides known to be harmful. How harmful, to whom and over what time period have been discussed before in previous blogs and in “The Silent Threat” (9) and will doubtless be the subject of many future blogs. But that some of the pesticides used in conventional agriculture are potentially harmful to you and your family is beyond dispute. And the only way to avoid those risks is to avoid exposure to these chemicals. Eating organically produced foods does that (10).

It’s the same for the presence of antibiotic resistant bacteria on conventionally grown produce. We know using antibiotics to produce your food is not a good idea. And we know why. And we’ve known for some time. Yet we still do it. Here again, eating organically produced foods reduces your risk.

And finally, in this series of blogs we have deliberately avoided discussing the relative environmental costs of organic and conventional agricultural methods and how the conventional agricultural methods in widespread use are ecologically unsustainable. It’s not because the question isn’t important. It’s very important. The reason it wasn’t discussed here is because it was not covered by the Stanford study, a point made quite clearly by the authors. That discussion we will leave for another time.

Until next time, stay happy and healthy.

References

(1) Smith-Spangler, C.; Brandeau, M. L.; Hunter, G. E.; Bavinger, J. C.; Pearson, M.; Eschbach, P. J.; Sundaram, V.; Liu, H.; Schirmer, P.; Stave, C.; Olkin, I. and Bravata, D. M.: Are organic foods safer or healthier than conventional alternatives?: A systematic review. Ann. Intern. Med., 157 (5), 348-366, 2012.
Abstract available online at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22944875
(2) Poulos A. and Hardy S.: Organic Food: A Guide for Consumers, Promoting Good Health, 2011
(3) Organic vs Conventional foods: Part 1 – Which is better?
(4) A measured difference between sample groups is said to be “statistically significant” if it passes a mathematical test for whether the observed difference is due to chance or not. A difference is usually said to be statistically significant when there is less than a 5% possibility the observed difference is due to chance.
(5) Brandt, K.; Leifert, C.; Sanderson, R.: and Seal, C. J.: Agroecosystem Management and Nutritional Quality of Plant Foods: The Case of Organic Fruits and Vegetables, Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 30 (1-2), 177-197, 2011
(3) Organic vs Conventional foods: Part 2 – Healthier for you?
(7) Bennett, M.; Davis, B. J.: The identification of mammary carcinogens in rodent bioassays; Environ. Mol. Mutagenesis, 39: 150-157, 2002.
(8) Preventable cancer in the USA. The Lancet, 375 (May 15): 1665, 2010.
(9) Poulos, A.: “The Silent Threat”. Promoting Good Health, 2005.
Available online at: http://www.promotinggoodhealth.com/shop/the-silent-threat
Available through Amazon at: http://www.amazon.com/The-Silent-Threat-Chemicals-ebook/dp/B0098ZRITO
(10) EWG’s 2012 Shopper’s Guide to Pesticide in Produce™ http://www.ewg.org/foodnews/summary/
(11) Hardy, S. J.: Antibiotics: Far too much of a good thing. CleanFood organic, No. 4, 166-175, 2007.
Hardy, S. J.: ‘Keeping the “Magic” in the “Magic Bullet” – Parts I to III’ Available online at: http://www.drstephenhardy.com/category/blog
(12) EPA: Pesticide Industry Sales and Usage 2006-2007 Market Estimates.
Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/pestsales/07pestsales/market_estimates2007.pdf
(13) A Present for Life: Hazardous chemicals in umbilical cord blood. Greenpeace and World Wildlife Fund (WWF), 2005.
Available online at: http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/en/Publications/2009-and-earlier/a-present-for-life

1. Organically produced foods are no more nutritious for you than those produced using conventional agricultural methods.
2. Organically grown produce does have higher levels of certain nutrients than conventionally grown foods.
3. Organic produce has less pesticide contamination than conventionally grown crops.
4. Organic foods contain less antibiotic-resistant bacteria than do conventionally grown foods.

In this blog we will look at the first of these categories: Healthier for you.

For this discussion, healthier for you means the nutritional content of organically grown food compared to those grown using conventional methods. These are points 1. and 2. on the above list.

In the Promoting Good Health publication “Organic Food: A Guide for Consumers“, we discuss how difficult it is to come to a sensible conclusion on whether organic food is more nutritious for you (2). Given the media flurry over the Stanford study, we need to again discuss why this seemingly simple question is very difficult to answer.

The Stanford study makes a genuine attempt to review the available literature, citing close to 300 previous publications and looking at over 200 different studies. And while the Stanford study is thorough and comprehensive and does make a genuine attempt at comparing and summarising the nutrient content of organic and conventionally grown foods, it is fundamentally flawed in this regard. And there are others who have similar concerns (5).

It is far more important to understand why the Stanford study is fundamentally flawed than to raise any specific criticism of this particular study. So let’s look at why the Stanford study is flawed because it is very important you have a clear understanding of why and, more importantly, what it means for you and your family.

While all food is made up of proteins, carbohydrates and fats, there are literally millions of other vitamins, minerals, trace elements, phytonutrients, anti-oxidants and compounds in the foods you eat which your body needs and uses every day to keep you healthy. So where do you start? Which nutrients do you measure? How do you know which ones are the most important? Yes, you have to start somewhere and surely the 20 or so nutrients measured in the Stanford study are enough to tell us something useful? And in that perfectly understandable and logical assumption is the illusion and the trap and why the Stanford study and others like it are fatally flawed.

Yes, you have to start somewhere but there are limits to what you can measure. And even if you can measure something and measure it very accurately, the measurements have to have real-world relevance. They have to reflect what is going on in your body. We’ll come back to this in a minute.

Before we start an in depth discussion on what is wrong with the Stanford study, we need to talk about what the Stanford study did show. When the available literature was reviewed, the Stanford study found organically produced carrots, celery, corn, onions, plums and potatoes had statistically significant higher levels of phosphorus than did the same foods grown by conventional means. (A statistically significant difference is one that is unlikely to be due to chance (4)). However before we make a big deal of this difference we need to come back to the discussion above: It has to have real-world relevance. It has to reflect what is going on in your body. Arguing over whether the higher phosphorus content of organically grown foods makes them better for you is rather a red herring, as dietary phosphorus only ever becomes deficient during near total starvation. The conventionally grown foods therefore have more than enough phosphorus to fulfil your dietary needs. So while the difference in phosphorus content may be real and measurable, in this case it’s not a clinically relevant difference. The Stanford study also found statistically higher levels of the following nutrients in organic produce:

Total phenols
n-3 fatty acids in organic milk and chicken
Vaccenic acid (an n-7 fatty acid) in organic chicken

These results were however based on either a small number of studies or were not statistically “robust” and so may not be real or reliable.

Because of the variability in the reports examined in the Stanford study, no statistically significant differences were found between organic and conventionally grown foods for any of the other nutrients examined.

So based on the published reports analysed in the Stanford study, the authors concluded there was no strong evidence to suggest organic foods were more nutritious for you than foods grown by conventional means. Others do not agree (5).

While this is what the Stanford study did say, free of bias, vested interest or selective reporting of the results, we have already said the results of the Stanford study is fatally flawed. We now need to look more deeply into why.

Assigning a nutritional value to a food based on the small number of nutrients looked at in the Stanford study or in the “Nutritional Information” on the packet is like trying to assess the worth of a piece of writing by measuring the number of times the letters “e”, “a” and “r” have been used. Sure you can get a very accurate measurement of how often each of these letters are used but it doesn’t tell you anything useful about the quality of the writing. The effect of the 23 letters you didn’t measure and the order of those letters has infinitely more effect on the quality of the writing than how many times the letters you did measure were used. So what effect will the nutrients you don’t measure have? What about their combined or synergistic effects? Are the nutrients in a form your body can take up or use? And how do you define what is a nutritionally beneficial effect anyway? Everything you are and everything your body needs to function at its peak must come from your food. Food is much more than its calorific content and the “Nutritional Information” shown on the packet is next to useless.

There is also the question of what you bring to the experience. Unless you have an identical twin brother or sister, the wondrous interplay of the genes passed down from your mother and father and from all the generations that came before them, makes you genetically unique. There is no-one on the planet who is just like you. And because of your unique genetic variations, how you process the foods you eat and the chemicals you come in contact with will be different to the way others process the foods they eat and the chemicals they come in contact with. Because everyone deals with the nutrients in food a little differently, the nutritional value of a food will not be exactly the same from person to person. These genetic differences also mean not everyone has the same requirement for a particular nutrient. And these differences can be huge. If your genetics has given you a severe food allergy for example, your body can turn something highly nutritious into something potentially deadly. In this case, one man’s meat really is another man’s poison. So while you can measure the level of a nutrient in the food, it does not tell you if your body can absorb or use it, how that nutrient will react in your body or if your body needs it at that particular time.

The consequences of genetic variation and what it means for both you and the health care system are a huge topic and will be the recurring theme for many future blogs. But not today…

It also has to do with timing. For the last 3 years of high school I had to study the works of Shakespeare as part of the set curriculum. At the time I was too young and naive to understand the meaning and significance of what I was reading. Too inexperienced in the ways of the world to recognise the greatness of the writing and the powerful insights they gave into human nature. Now, with a few more years and life experiences behind me, the same works mean a great deal more to me. The works of Shakespeare haven’t changed. I’ve changed and my reaction to Shakespeare’s works has changed as a result. So it is with your mind, so it is with your body. As you age the way your body processes foods changes, as does your body’s requirement for particular nutrients. This adds another layer of complexity that has to be taken into account.

There is another thing we need to discuss about nutrients in food that is almost impossible to factor into studies comparing nutritional content. Some of the nutrients in food start to disappear as soon as the fruit or vegetable has been picked. And this happens irrespective of how the food was grown. Try this experiment. Pick three apples off a tree. Eat one straight away, while it is still warm from the sun. Feel the sweetness of its flesh, the juiciness, the crunch and freshness as you bite into it. And how good does it taste?

Now put the other two apples on the kitchen bench and leave them there. Eat one the next day and see how that feels and tastes compared to the one you ate fresh off the tree. Now wait another three days and eat the last apple. How does it look? How does it taste, or feel in the mouth? Are you enjoying eating it as much as you did the one fresh off the tree? I doubt it.

What’s happening here? Each of these apples was picked at the same time from the same tree. Their nutritional content should be the same shouldn’t it? Then why do they taste so different? It’s because the nutrient content has changed since they were picked. And even if the gross measurement of total protein, carbohydrate, fat or energy content may still be the same, we know food is much more than this. As was discussed above, the food you eat contains thousands of nutrients, some of which start to disappear within minutes of the food being picked. Others may take hours, days or weeks to break down. You don’t need a PhD in biochemistry or sophisticated measuring equipment to prove it either. Nature has provided you with all the equipment you need to determine whether food is fresh or not. It will look fresh. It will feel fresh. It will smell fresh and it will taste differently. And the longer the gap between when the food was picked and when it was eaten, the more nutrients will be lost. So fresh is best and applies irrespective of how the food was grown. And how long the food took to get from farm to shop to you and how it was stored will have a profound effect on its nutritional content. Potentially, much more that how it was grown in the first place.

So while we can ask whether a food contains a specific nutrient and can measure it very accurately, whether that automatically means the food is better for you because of it is something you cannot say. That is a question too complex for a “Yes” or “No” answer. Not everything can be shortened to a bumper sticker. Being aware of what you can and can’t prove and how important time from harvest to plate is in determining how nutritious your food will be is a very important and useful piece of information. It means you can tell the difference between marketing hype and scientific reality. And that’s what Promoting Good Health is all about.

So if the Stanford study or any other study like it can’t reliably tell us whether or not organically grown food is healthier for you than foods grown using conventional methods, what can it tell us? That’s the question we will address in the third and final part of this blog.

Until then, stay happy and healthy.

References

(1) Smith-Spangler, C.; Brandeau, M. L.; Hunter, G. E.; Bavinger, J. C.; Pearson, M.; Eschbach, P. J.; Sundaram, V.; Liu, H.; Schirmer, P.; Stave, C.; Olkin, I. and Bravata, D. M.: Are organic foods safer or healthier than conventional alternatives?: A systematic review. Ann. Intern. Med., 157 (5), 348-366, 2012.
Abstract available online at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22944875
(2) Poulos A. and Hardy S.: Organic Food: A Guide for Consumers, Promoting Good Health, 2011
(3) Organic vs Conventional foods: Part 1 – Which is better?
(4) A measured difference between sample groups is said to be “statistically significant” if it passes a mathematical test for whether the observed difference is due to chance or not. A difference is usually said to be statistically significant when there is less than a 5% possibility the observed difference is due to chance.
(5) Brandt, K.; Leifert, C.; Sanderson, R.: and Seal, C. J.: Agroecosystem Management and Nutritional Quality of Plant Foods: The Case of Organic Fruits and Vegetables, Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 30 (1-2), 177-197, 2011

One side loudly proclaimed organic food was better for you because it had higher levels of particular nutrients and wasn’t contaminated with harmful pesticides or antibiotic resistant bacteria. The other side was saying just as loudly organic food was a waste of money, no better for you than conventionally grown food and you shouldn’t have to pay the premium prices for organic food if there was no benefit. And this battle for our hearts, minds and wallets was being raged everywhere you looked. It was splashed across TV, on the radio, in magazines, the print media and on countless websites. It went on for weeks.

As someone with more than a passing interest and a fair bit of background knowledge on the subject (we’ve previously written a book about it), I took a keen interest in the debate. One of the reasons I found the whole thing amusing was each camp was so adamant in their statements, so dismissive of the other sides point of view.

But the crazy thing and something not obvious to the casual observer, was both sides were quoting the same scientific study – a report from Stanford University in the USA – to prove their point (1). Yes, you did read that right: The SAME study!

Hang on a minute? Both sides are using the SAME scientific study to promote completely opposite points of view? How can this be? Is the study wrong? Is someone being highly selective in what they say? Aren’t they telling the truth? And what is the truth? What does the Stanford study REALLY show and what does it mean for you?

Scientists can’t help asking questions, it’s in our nature and why we became scientists in the first place. So when I see media reports using the same scientific study to promote opposing points of view, I have to know why. And if the media is confused and sending mixed messages, the industry is confused and sending mixed messages and the experts are confused and sending mixed messages, what hope do you have working out who to believe? Promoting Good Health is about providing unbiased information to help consumers like you make sensible decisions. So it would have been easier to hold back the tide than stop me finding out more. And the only way to know what the Stanford study really found was to read it for myself.

On reading the Stanford study what became immediately obvious was many of the people who were using it to prove their case or criticising it because it disagreed with what they wanted to believe had never read it! The authors of the Stanford study make it quite clear what they were and were not looking at with the study. Yet the clearly defined boundaries of the study are conveniently glossed over, never mentioned, missing or misrepresented in many of the media reports – on both sides of the debate.

So what are the fundamental points being put forward through the media by the different camps about the Stanford study? There are four:

1. Organically produced foods are no more nutritious for you than those produced using conventional agricultural methods.
2. Organically grown produce does have higher levels of certain nutrients than conventionally grown foods.
3. Organic produce has less pesticide contamination than conventionally grown crops.
4. Organic foods contain less antibiotic-resistant bacteria than do conventionally grown foods.

These points fall into two broad categories:

Healthier for you
Safer for you

Over the next couple of blogs I will look at both these categories, how they relate to the Stanford study, what their wider implications are and most importantly, what they mean to you and your family.

Until then, stay happy and healthy.

References

(1) Smith-Spangler, C.; Brandeau, M. L.; Hunter, G. E.; Bavinger, J. C.; Pearson, M.; Eschbach, P. J.; Sundaram, V.; Liu, H.; Schirmer, P.; Stave, C.; Olkin, I. and Bravata, D. M.: Are organic foods safer or healthier than conventional alternatives?: A systematic review. Ann. Intern. Med., 157 (5), 348-66, 2012.
Abstract available online at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22944875

A recent study published by the University of Sydney has pointed to yet another health risk factor we need to add to this list (1). And it’s something we all do a lot of. Sitting!

So what’s wrong with sitting?

Well the first problem is we do an awful lot of it. Like me, you might be surprised to learn how much time you spend each day sitting. Think about it. You eat breakfast sitting down. You sit in the train, tram, bus or car to go to work. You sit working at your desk for eight hours before sitting again in the train, tram, bus or car to come home again. And at end of a long day you can’t wait to sit down to a hearty meal and spend some quality time sitting in front of the TV or curled up in a comfy chair with a good book. The reality is, many of us spend more time each day sitting than we do sleeping!

The study warning about the health risks of sitting is the first landmark finding to come out of the “45 and Up Study” (www.45andup.org.au). The “45 and Up Study”, being run by the Sax Institute, is the largest study of healthy ageing ever undertaken in the Southern Hemisphere. Over 265,000 people were recruited into the study, around 10 % of the men and women aged 45 and over in the Australian state of New South Wales. The information collected from the “45 and Up Study” will be used by researchers and policy makers to help prevent disease and improve the standard of health care delivered to the Australian population as it ages.

The research yielded surprising results. People who sat for 11 hours or more a day had a 40 percent greater change of dying in the next three years compared to those who sat for less than four hours per day. And for the 5,405 people who died during the three years of the study, 7 percent of these deaths were attributed to the effects of prolonged sitting. Other surprising statistics and findings will doubtless come to light in the years ahead as the “45 and Up Study” continues.

So why is sitting so bad? After a meal your blood sugar rises. When you move the muscle contractions help your body to clear this blood sugar. When you sit for prolonged periods however, there are insufficient muscle contractions to reduce the blood sugar, so it can stay high for hours. Having high blood sugar for extended periods has been linked with a growing list of degenerative diseases like diabetes, autoimmunity, heart disease and cancer.

If sitting is so bad for you and we are spending more and more of our day doing it, this is a significant public health problem. So what’s to be done? The study found exercise helped reduce the risks but it didn’t counteract the negative effects of prolonged sitting. So do you need to spend even more time in the gym to make up for it? Is there some magic pill you can take? Fortunately the solution is remarkably simple. The study found that a light walk every twenty minutes or so was enough to lower blood glucose and counteract the effects of prolonged sitting. It didn’t seem to matter whether the walk was brisk or leisurely either, it was the movement itself that was important, not the intensity of it. So a brief walk around the office or around the block every half hour may not only be good for your posture and your concentration, it may help you live longer!

Until next time, stay happy and healthy.

References

(1) van der Ploeg, H.P.; Chey, T.; Korda, R.J.; Banks, E. and Bauman, A. Sitting time and all-cause mortality risk in 222,497 Australian adults. Arch. Intern. Med.; 172(6), 494-500, 2012.
Abstract available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22450936

So what about olive oil? Is it good or bad? Olive oil has been a food for a very long time. Indeed, there are references to olive oil in almost all the major religious texts, it was considered a gift from the Gods by the ancient Greeks and is mentioned several times in the works of Homer. There is plenty of evidence a high intake of olive oil, as part of a balanced Mediterranean diet, with its emphasis on grains, fresh fruit, fish, vegetables and pulses is healthy. In the last decade a lot of research has been carried out to better understand why (1). Much of this research has focused on two components of olive oil:

• monounsaturated fats
• polyphenols

While both of these are present in abundance in olive oil, there are also a lot of other substances in olive oil which are nutritionally important.

There are lots of claims about the beneficial effects of olive oil on our health and wellbeing. It has for example been said to reduce the risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes, cancer and metabolic syndrome (1, 2). Metabolic syndrome greatly increases the risk of diabetes, stroke and heart disease. Those with metabolic syndrome have high levels of a particular fat (triglycerides) in the blood, increased body fat, especially at the waistline, high blood pressure and high blood sugar. But what is particularly intriguing about olive oil is the claim that it may reduce the risk of obesity. Yes, you did read that right: Eating a fat may actually stop you from getting fat! What a paradox if it were true? Olive oil is a fat, containing about the same amount of energy as most other fats and oils (34 kjoules per gram or 230 calories per ounce). Olive oil also contains almost double the kjoule or calorie content of the other two principal components of our diet: Carbohydrates and proteins. Because of its high kilojoule or calorie content, you would have thought eating olive oil would increase, not decrease, the likelihood of putting on weight and obesity!

So what is the evidence eating olive oil can stop you getting fat? And how can it be?

Now no one is saying taking a few spoonfuls of olive oil every day will make you lose weight. What is being claimed is a Mediterranean diet, where olive oil is the principal fat, “does not contribute to obesity” or “is not associated with higher weight gain or risk of developing obesity” (3). And these claims are coming from reputable scientists in international scientific journals and not from the latest fad diet book or people growing or selling olive oil. A more recent study published in the European Journal of Endocrinology by a group of Spanish scientists appears to show children (1 – 4 years) can also benefit from an olive oil rich diet (4). Yet another study indicates even those who have an inherited predisposition to putting on weight may also benefit from an olive oil rich diet (5).

While these findings do not prove olive oil is a magic elixir to ward off excess weight, they do suggest, when taken as part of a balanced Mediterranean diet, the body may not treat olive oil in the same way as other fats, like animal fats. So what is it that is different about olive oil?

One very obvious difference is in the very high levels of the so-called “monounsaturated” fats, which make up more than 70% of olive oil. By comparison, animal fats like those in butter only have around 25% monounsaturated fat. The main “monounsaturated” fat in olive oil and butter for that matter, is oleic acid. For quite a while it was considered to be just another fat. We now know better.

We have known for some time oleic acid does not increase blood cholesterol in the same way as saturated fats do. Then, a few years ago, scientists working in a completely different area of research – and this happens quite a lot – made the very interesting discovery. The scientists were working on cannabinoids, chemical substances present in certain plants, in particular marijuana or pot. Marijuana is often called cannabis because of the high levels of cannabinoids it contains. The scientist found the body made its own “cannabinoids”, called “endocannabinoids”. While these molecules were chemically quite different from those found in marijuana, they also had effects on different organs and especially the brain. And one of these endocannabinoids, called oleoylethanolamide, is made in our bodies from oleic acid, the main fat found in olive oil (6). What makes this finding particularly interesting from a nutritional point of view, is oleoylethanolamide seems to be made in the gut and, in ways we do not as yet understand, may be involved in the regulation of food intake (6, 7). So when you eat olive oil, the monounsaturated fat oleic acid in the oil is converted in your gut into something, which suppresses appetite and therefore regulates the amount of food you eat. Could this explain the apparent paradox where eating olive oil does not make you put on weight?

It is probably not that simple because olive oil is a complex mixture, containing a lot more than just oleic acid. There are many other components, just a few of which include:

• Polyphenols: Which act as antioxidants, anti-microbials and anti-inflammatories;
• Fat soluble vitamins: Like vitamins E, K and beta-carotene, a vitamin A precursor;
• Squalene: A fatty substance known to boost the immune response;
• Phytosterols: Which can reduce the blood levels of the “bad cholesterol.

Then there are dozens of other substances, which contribute to the unique odour, colour, and taste of olive oil. If olive oil were involved in lowering the risk of gaining weight, it would be surprising if these additional substances did not contribute in some way.

Consumers are spoilt for choice when it comes to choosing an oil or fat for cooking. Making that choice is confusing however because of the conflicting messages the consumer gets from the media, the internet and the labels on the bottles. What is a saturated, monounsaturated or polyunsaturated fat? What does Extra-Virgin mean? What is a cold pressed oil? How long can I store an oil? Which oil is good for my health and why? Is this a safe oil to cook with? What does “Organic” on the label really mean? These are just some of the questions asked by consumers. To answer this question, and many others, we have written “Olive Oil: Everything You Want to Know”, which is available as both an e-book and as a paperback book on our website.

“Olive Oil: Everything You Want to Know” has been specifically written for consumers and addresses many frequently answered questions about olive oil. Others who will find the book useful include:

• Anyone confused by the terminology surrounding olive oil.
• Those who want to know what the information on the label means or want to know more than what is on the label.
• Those who want to know what olive oil is and what it contains.
• Those who want to know about the health benefits of olive oil, one of the key components of the Mediterranean diet.
• Professional chefs, retailers, foodies, nutritionists, dieticians, health and food journalists.
• The olive oil industry.
• And anyone who wants unbiased and understandable information based on the latest scientific and medical research published in international peer-reviewed journals.

Someone like you! We hope you enjoy it.

Meanwhile, stay healthy.

References

(1) Lopez-Miranda, J.; et al; Olive oil and health: Summary of the II international conference on olive oil and health consensus report. Jaén and Córdoba (Spain) 2008. Nutr. Metab. Cardiovasc. Dis., 20, 284-294, 2010.
Abstract available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20303720
(2) Psaltopoulou, T.; et al; Olive oil intake is inversely related to cancer prevalence: a systematic review and a meta-analysis of 13,800 patients and 23,340 controls in 19 observational studies. Lipid Health Dis., 10, 127, 2011.
Abstract available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21801436
Full article available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3199852/pdf/1476-511X-10-127.pdf
(3) Bes-Rastrollo, M.; et al; Olive oil consumption and weight change: the SUN prospective cohort study. Lipids, 41, 249-256, 2006.
Abstract available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16711599
(4) Haro-Mora, J. J.; et al; Children whose diet contained olive oil had a lower likelihood of increasing their body mass index Z-score over 1 year. Eur. J. Endocrinol., 165, 435-439, 2011.
Abstract available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21715417
(5) Razquin, C.; et al; A Mediterranean diet rich in virgin olive oil may reverse the effects of the -174G/C IL6 gene variant on 3-year body weight change. Mol. Nutr. Food Res., 54, Suppl 1, S75-82, 2010.
Abstract available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20352618
(6) Gaetani, S.; et al; Role of endocannabinoids and their analogues in obesity and eating disorders. Eat Weight Disord., 13, e42-8, 2008. Erratum in Eat Weight Disord. Mar;16(1):e72., 2011.
Abstract available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19011363
(7) Thabius, C.; et al; Analysis of gene expression pattern reveals potential targets of dietary oleoylethanolamide in reducing body fat gain in C3H mice. J. Nutr. Biochem., 21, 922-928, 2010.
Abstract available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19954948

To solve these problems we need to get creative, to think differently and we need to think long-term. And we also need a mindset where we see opportunities rather than obstacles.

In 1996 Edward Tenner wrote a landmark book “Why Things Bite Back” (1), about the unintended negative consequences of technological advances. There are many examples we could use for the sort of thing he was referring to. The widespread use of antibiotics led to the rise of resistant and more deadly bacterial strains. Computers were meant to make our lives easier, give us the paperless office and more leisure time. But instead the rate of deforestation increased, we worked longer hours, got RSI (Repetitive Strain Injury) from lousy posture and became obese and non-communicative because we sat in front of the screen all day.

Unintended consequences don’t always have to be negative however. They can be just what we need to make us think differently.

In a TED lecture in February 2011, Edward Tenner described some examples where great opportunity came from adversity or from disasters. Click here to see the Edward Tenner TED lecture on Unintended Consequences.

During the Great Depression, which started in 1929 and lasted a decade, millions lost their jobs or had to change careers. Despite this, the greatest period of human ingenuity and innovation was during the Great Depression. Why? According to Tenner it was because people left one career and ended up in another career where their creativity could be expressed. In personal tragedy or upheaval they found their greatest opportunity. Many leaders teach your greatest opportunities lie in your greatest setbacks. The trick is to be ready for them and have the mindset to see them.

This was recently brought home to me while watching a DVD called “No Impact Man”. More information on No Impact Man can be found at www.noimpactman.com.

Click here to see the official trailer for No Impact Man.

For those unfamiliar with the story: Colin Beavan, a writer living in New York City, decides to stop talking about making a difference and puts his money where his mouth is to live a life in line with his values. For a year he sets out to live a life that makes no net environmental impact, while taking his caffeine loving, retail therapy obsessed, reality TV addicted wife Michelle Conlin, their 2-year old daughter Isabella and the dog along for the ride.

Living a life with no net environmental impact doesn’t mean rejecting all technology or denying the benefits some of our remarkable technological advances have brought us. For the purpose of Colin and Michelle’s experiment, living a life with no net environmental impact included, amongst other things, creating no trash or garbage (the average American produces 725 kg (1,600 pounds) per year), using no electricity generated from fossil fuels, creating no carbon emissions, no magazine subscriptions, no pollution, no new products, no packaging, no plastics, no TV, no food imported from the other side of the world, no air conditioning and no toilet paper. In fact none of the conveniences that make life comfortable, enjoyable or even worthwhile. All this to ask the question: Is it possible to have a good life without wasting so much? And can you do it without driving your family crazy?

Let’s just think about this for a minute. A year without toilet paper. A year without coffee. A year without retail therapy. No new iPod, Wii, PS3 or Xbox games or ring tones for your cell phone. No new designer label dresses. Did I mention a year without toilet paper? No new subwoofer for the car because there is no car! No take out food. No television. No lifts or elevators. No holidays in exotic locations. No nightclubbing. No new set of golf clubs. And don’t forget no toilet paper! Sounds ghastly. What’s he possibly hoping to prove? Why would I sit for an hour and a half watching a movie about someone living a pointless and unrealistic hair-shirt life you wouldn’t live in a blind fit?

The reason is because it didn’t turn out that way. The movie follows the family’s progress through the year as they work to reduce their environmental impact in stages. It follows their successes and failures, the reaction from their friends and colleagues, the interest from the media and the surprisingly hostile response some environmental groups had to the project. All this is interesting enough but there is something more, something special, a lesson for us all.

By living the No Impact Man life, something happened neither Colin nor Michelle expected. Something changed within them. By wanting to do something for the environment they unwittingly learnt something about themselves. They learnt how to be better people. They found a richness in their new life they had never known before that went beyond just being No Impact Man. According to Colin Beavan, he could have equally called the film:

“The year I lost 20 pounds without going to the gym once. Or the year we didn’t watch TV and became much better parents as a result. Or the year we eat locally and seasonally and it ended up reversing my wife’s pre-diabetic condition.”

While reducing their net environmental impact to zero, they saved money, lost weight, gained energy, improved their health, spent more quality time with their family and friends, invigorated their marital relationship and discovered an overall sense of freedom. Sounds like a pretty appealing hair-shirt existence to me. And none of it did they expect.

I’m sure Edward Tenner would approve.

And at the end of the year-long experiment, did Colin and Michelle say “I’m glad that’s over” and go back to the life they had before? No they didn’t. They liked the No Impact Man way of life and were very selective about which technologies they added back to their lives. They are now helping others re-evaluate their lives through the No Impact Experiment.

For more information on the No Impact Experiment visit: www.noimpactproject.org.

Click here to see a video introduction to the No Impact Experiment.

The American Civil Rights leader Dr Martin Luther King Jr. once said:

“Take the first step in faith. You don’t have to see the whole staircase, just take the first step.”

The experiences of Colin, his wife Michelle, their daughter Isabelle and the dog are testament to this thinking.

They started something they thought was going to be difficult. They thought of all the things they had to give up over the coming year. Of all the sacrifices they were going to have to make. They thought of all the negative reactions they were likely to receive. And they did it anyway. They took the first step in faith and because they had the courage to take that step, their lives will never be the same again.

No Impact Man challenges us in an engaging way to look at what we believe and what we do and the effect it has not just on the environment but on ourselves and those around us.

It poses the questions: Why do we do the things we do? Why do we believe the things we believe, hold the views we hold, live the way we live and want the things we want? Have we really thought about them or do we just do or believe them because that’s what we’ve always done? Do we do or believe them because that’s what our parents did or told us? Do we do or believe them because that’s what we were taught in school or in church? Do we do or believe them because that’s what some advert on television or in the glossy magazine said we needed to make us a better, more attractive or more desirable person? Or do we do or believe them because they’re convenient, they’re comfortable, they’re safe?

These beliefs may well be true – for them – but are they true for you? Are they in your best interests? Do they fit with your ethics, your beliefs? And how do they respect the interests, ethics and beliefs of those around you and the other species sharing our planet?

Living the No Impact Man life meant Colin and Michelle had no choice but to ask these questions and come up with honest answers relevant to them and to the way they wanted to live their lives. Everything was up for examination and everything had to stand the scrutiny of whether it supported them and fitted the ethics of the way they wanted to live their lives. The challenge and warning to us all is they came up with answers so different to the way society and the mass media says we should live or what we should aspire to. Ideas that on first inspection seem “out there”, “fringe” and “whacko”. So are they really fringe or whacko or does it tell us the message we are getting through the mass media and from those around us may not be in our best interests? Do we need to start asking the hard questions of ourselves? Have the lunatics taken over the asylum?

By undertaking the No Impact Man experiment, Colin and Michelle began to live a conscious life. Living a conscious life means being aware of the effects your decisions have on you and those around you. Living a conscious life also means you accept responsibility for your actions and the choices you make. Living a conscious life also means living a life you have consciously chosen to live. Not a life or belief system you were given when you were young or were told was “right” by the mass media or those in authority over you at the time. Living a conscious life means you have made a conscious decision about everything you do in all aspects and areas in your life. In doing so the various parts of your life begin to align and support one another. It can’t help happening. And as more and more areas of your life begin to align, something magical happens. As you begin to live your life with a unified ethic and purpose, all your efforts and energies begin to flow in the same direction. The answers to the questions of why you are here and what your purpose is in life start to reveal themselves. And you have the inner fire and energy all flowing in the same direction to make it happen and the courage to stand tall when people want to put you down.

So get out there are do something good for the environment. Who knows, along the way you may discover you’re also doing a whole lot of good for yourself as well. And you may also discover a courage you never knew you had.

As Edward Tenner says:

“Chaos happens: Let’s make better use of it”.

Until next time, stay happy and healthy.

References

(1) Tenner, E.: Why Things Bite Back: Technology and the Revenge Effect. Fourth State, London, 1996.

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.