Author: lcoffice

Last month a group of “prominent” scientists sent a registered letter to UN Secretary-General António Guterres.

The letter, headed “There is no climate emergency”, urges Guterres to follow a climate policy based on sound science, realistic economics and genuine concern for those harmed by costly but unnecessary attempts at mitigation “.

 

 

Climate Intelligence (CLINTEL) was founded this year by G. Berkhout and M. Crok. Berkhout began his career at Shell and set up the Delphi Consortium to work on new ways of extracting oil and gas. He was also professor of acoustics, geophysics and innovation management at Delft University of Technology. Crok is a science journalist. CLINTEL receives abundant support from a number of wealthy private financiers in the Netherlands and abroad who, like Berkhout, believe that the established order is focusing too strongly on combating carbon dioxide. Berkhout is not at all convinced that carbon dioxide is the main cause of global warming.

 

“Sound science”, where have I heard that before?

A document by Philip Morris from 1994 evidences that the tobacco giant used his public relations company Burson Marstellar to organise a front group of “sound science”. It goes without saying that the intention was to enable Philip Morris to influence politicians favorably and to disseminate own information about the health effects of tobacco. Moreover, no effort was spared to hide the involvement of the tobacco industry. Today, it is known that thousands of internal tobacco industry documents released through litigation and whistleblowers reveal the most astonishing systematic corporate deceit of all time [Proctor 2012]. Yet the Big Tobacco approach was only one example among many that adopted the same strategy. The term “sound science” hits the nail on the head; it has now become clear that creating doubt and uncertainty can generate unjustified and unjustifiable sources of revenue [Oreskes and Conway 2010]!

We often have a distorted picture of scientific work and research. We are inclined to believe that science creates absolute certainties, absolute truth. In other words, when there is no certainty, we think science is mistaken or at the very least, incomplete. It is important to remember the definition of truth offered by the French biologist and humanist, J. Rostand (1894 – 1977). He believed in the modest, scientific truth, the fragmentary, provisional truth that is constantly being revised and improved. He never accepted a total and definitive truth, a dogmatic and absolute truth that generates many forms of sectarianism and fanaticism [Rostand 1963].

Science does not provide us with absolute certainties, it provides us with the best consensus of experts (experts in the plural).

 

Climate change is devastating our seas and frozen regions as never before

According to the third scientific report published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC 2019] over the past 12 months, water levels are rising, the ice is melting, and species are abandoning their habitats because of human activities. Moreover, the loss of permanently frozen lands threatens to unleash even more carbon and accelerate the decline of our planet. There is, however, some guarded hope that the worst impacts can be avoided, if drastic cuts in carbon emissions are made without further delay.

Global warming has already reached 1 C above the pre-industrial level and there is overwhelming evidence that this is resulting in far-reaching consequences for ecosystems as well as for people. The ocean is now warmer, more acidic and less productive. Melting glaciers and ice sheets are causing rises in ocean levels, and extreme coastal events are becoming more severe. The report provides new evidence for the benefits of limiting global warming to the lowest possible level – in line with the goal that governments set themselves in the 2015 Paris Agreement. Urgently reducing greenhouse gas emissions limits the scale of ocean and cryosphere changes. Additionally, ecosystems and the livelihoods that depend on them can be preserved. However, even if there is a sharp reduction in emissions, the consequences for people and their livelihoods will still be challenging, but they will be potentially more manageable for those who are most vulnerable [IPCC 2019].

Five chief concerns are particularly striking. First, major changes in high mountains affect downstream communities, since people in mountain regions are increasingly exposed to hazards and changes in water availability. Secondly, the volumes of glaciers and ice sheets in polar and mountain regions are decreasing, and this contributes to an increasing rate of sea level rise, together with an expansion of the warmer ocean. Thirdly, the sea level has already risen by about 15 to 20 cm during the 20^th century. Sea level rise increases the frequency of extreme coastal events, which occur for example during high tides and intense storms. Indications are that with any degree of additional warming, events that occurred once per century in the past will occur every year by mid-century in many regions. And, fourth, warming and changes in ocean chemistry are already disrupting species throughout the ocean food web, with impacts on marine ecosystems and people that depend on them. Finally, permafrost ground that has been frozen for many years is warming and widespread permafrost thaw is projected to occur in the 21^st century. Even if global warming is limited to well below 2 C, around 25 % of the near-surface (3 to 4 meters depth) permafrost will thaw by 2100. If greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase strongly, there is potentially the risk that around 70 % near-surface permafrost could be lost.

 

The global change issue in a nutshell

Global warming is about an overall increase in the amount of energy, caused by an increase in heat-trapping greenhouse gases. Talking about a few degrees of average temperature increase does not sound like much. Imagine, however, a glass of water and a few ice cubes in a refrigerator whose temperature is set right at the freezing point of water. The mixture of ice and water will remain unchanged; but if the temperature is raised by even 1 degree, the ice cubes will start to melt. Everything was in balance at 0 C, but at the slightly warmer temperature there will be only water left and no ice, much like what is happening right now with sea ice and mountain glaciers. Hence, coastal communities worldwide must prepare themselves for much more difficult futures than may be currently anticipated. Sea-level rise this century may induce large-scale migration away from unprotected coastlines, redistributing population density across countries and putting great pressure on inland areas [Kulp & Strauss 2019]. Will Ostend sink below sea level?

Also, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services presented an ominous picture: The health of ecosystems on which we and all other species depend is deteriorating more rapidly than ever. We are eroding the very foundations of our economies, livelihoods, food security, health and quality of life worldwide [IPBES 2019]. This report – the full report is still to be published – finds that around 1 million animal and plant species are now threatened with extinction, many within decades. It never happened that fast in human history. Is this extinction or is it extermination [Sparrow 2019]?

Thirdly, the term “chemical contamination” refers to the presence of chemicals where they should not be and/or to concentrations of chemicals that are considered unsafe. The origins of chemical contaminants are very diverse: soil, air, water, environment, disinfection by-products, personal care products, packaging materials, agrochemicals, etc. Chemical contaminations affect all mass-produced consumer goods. Even our drinking water and foods are not immune from the attacks of chemical contaminants. Sometimes they occur in disturbingly high concentrations. Food contamination, whether accidental or intentional, brings in its wake serious human health and safety implications [Rather et al. 2017]. Chemical contaminants can be present in foods mainly as a result of the use of agrochemicals such as pesticides and veterinary drugs, contamination from environmental sources (water, air and soil pollution), cross-contamination or contaminant formation during food processing, migration from food contact and packaging materials, occurrence of natural toxins and use of unapproved food additives and adulterants [Mastovska 2013].

Finally, there can be no doubt that global change – in the concept’s widest sense – affects social life, economy, and public health. With steadily increasing rates of obesity, diabetes, ADHD, autism and infertility it is impossible to ignore the link between chemical contaminants and disease [Goeyens 2019; Trasande 2019].

Anyone who says there is nothing to be afraid of?

But acknowledging climate change involves accepting certain facts. Being concerned about climate change, on the other hand, involves connecting these facts to values; it involves building bridges between the science of climate change and peoples’ various causes, commitments and convictions [Hall 2019].

 

Has outright science denial been replaced by efforts to reframe climate change as natural and climate action as unwarranted?

Clearly, the language of climate change denial and inaction is no longer the same as it used to be. We now face just another way of rejecting the facts and their implications for us. Denial can take many forms [Walker & Leviston 2019]. As the sociologist S. Cohen [2001] noted in his classic study, there is an important distinction between denial that is personal and psychological, and denial that is institutional and organised. The former involves people who deny the facts to themselves; the latter involves the denial of facts to others, even when these “merchants of doubt” know the truth very well [Oreskes & Conway 2010].

The first form of denial is literal denial. It is the simple, conscious, outright rejection that something happened or is happening. That is paramount to lying! Most worrying and insidious is the social organisation of literal climate change denial. There is indeed remarkably abundant evidence of clandestine, orchestrated lying by vested interests in industry [Cook 2019].

The second form of denial is interpretive denial: people do not challenge the facts, but interpret them in ways that distort their meaning or importance. For example, climate change can be seen as just a natural fluctuation and greenhouse gas accumulation as a consequence, not as a cause, of rising temperatures.

The third and most insidious form is implicatory denial. The facts of climate change are not denied, nor are they interpreted to be something else. What is denied or minimised is the psychological, political, and moral implications of the facts for us. We fail to accept responsibility for responding; we fail to act when the information says we should!

How can decision makers say they are fed up with climate critics when it is they who should be fighting to preserve the environment?

 

It is often said that necessity is the mother of invention

When in history did a radical overhaul of global economy and society happened through worldwide consensus?

Now polar ice is melting faster than predicted, forests are burning like never before and extreme weather records are being smashed. This year, a team of serious scholars estimated a one‑in‑20 chance of a sea-level rise of 2 metres by 2100. Carbon dioxide levels are the highest they’ve been in human history. Already, there is widespread suffering, including tragic losses of human life and biodiversity, with poorer and marginalized communities the worst affected. Climate emergency is now widely recognised [Gilding 2019]. So welcome to Armageddon; or shall we throw all the technology we have into the battle?

The terrifying prospect of what lies ahead may be the best motivation we have to encourage us to join forces and face the daunting challenge together. Humans are usually slow to react, but when faced with the prospect of their own extinction, their readiness to sacrifice what they have, to contribute to a common cause, and to accept the principle of drastic government intervention can be quite remarkable.

Which is why Gilding [2019] welcomes a declaration of climate emergency as an impetus for change, along with social movements and teenage activists’ school strikes. Though he cannot of course accept the burning of the Amazon forest, the melting of the ice caps or the devastating impacts already affecting too many people around the globe he believes fear of what may happen if no action  is taken, may trigger a world-wide response.

So let us all take a deep breath and join the emergency mobilisation!

 

Download the PDF

 

References

Cohen [2001]. States of Denial: Knowing about Atrocities and Suffering, Polity Press, pp. 390

Cook [2019]. A brief history of fossil-fueled climate denial, The Conversation, pp. 6

Gilding [2019]. Why I welcome a climate emergency, Nature 573, 311

Goeyens [2019]. Good and Bad Food Science, Academic and Scientific Publishers, pp. 366

IPBES [2019]. Press Release – Nature’s Dangerous Decline ‘Unprecedented’ Species Extinction Rates ‘Accelerating’, pp 12

IPCC [2019]. The Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate,

Hall [2019]. Climate explained: why some people still think climate change isn’t real, The Conversation, pp. 5

Kulp & Strauss [2019]. New elevation data triple estimates of global vulnerability to sea-level rise and coastal flooding, Nature Communications 10, 4844, pp. 12

Mastovska [2013]. Modern Analysis of Chemical Contaminants in Food, Food Safety Magazine, February/March, available online at: http://www.foodsafetymagazine.com/magazine-archive1/februarymarch-2013/modern-analysis-of-chemicalcontaminants-in-food/

Oreskes & Conway [2010]. Merchants of Doubt, Bloomsbury, pp. 355

Proctor [2012]. Golden Holocaust: Origins of the Cigarette Catastrophe and the Case for Abolition, University of California Press, pp. 737

Rather et al. [2017]. The Sources of Chemical Contaminants in Food and Their Health Implications, Frontiers in pharmacology 8, 830, pp. 8

Rostand [1963]. Le droit d’être naturaliste, Éditions Stock, pp. 213

Sparrow [2019]. This isn’t extinction, it’s extermination: the people killing nature know what they’re doing, The Guardian, September 20

Trasande [2019]. Sicker, Fatter, Poorer: The Urgent Threat of Hormone-Disrupting Chemicals to Our Health and Future . . . and What We Can Do About It, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, pp. 211

Walker & Leviston [2019]. There are three types of climate change denier, and most of us are at least one, The Conversation, pp. 4

 

In October 2015, 22 scientists from 10 countries met at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) to evaluate the carcinogenicity of red meat and processed meat consumption. Their alarming conclusions were published in volume 114 of the IARC Monographs: consumption of processed meat is classified as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1) on the basis of sufficient evidence for colorectal cancer, and consumption of red meat is classified as probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A).

If you eat a lot of red and processed meat, it is recommended that you cut down on your intake because of the suspected link between red and processed meat consumption and bowel cancer

Red meat refers to unprocessed mammalian muscle meat – beef, veal, pork, lamb, mutton, horse, or goat – including minced or frozen meat. It is often consumed cooked. Processed meat refers to meat that has been transformed through salting, curing, fermentation, smoking as well as other processes that enhance flavour or improve preservation. Most processed meats contain pork or beef, but might also contain other red meats, poultry, offal (e.g. liver), or meat byproducts such as blood [Bouvard et al. 2015].

Red meat contains valuable proteins and important micronutrients such as B vitamins, iron, and zinc. Its fat content varies depending on animal species, age, sex, breed, feed, as well as the cut of the meat. Meat processing, such as curing and smoking, can result in the formation of carcinogenic chemicals, including N-nitroso-compounds and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). Cooking improves the digestibility and palatability of meat, but can also produce known or suspected carcinogens, including heterocyclic aromatic amines and PAH. High-temperature cooking by panfrying, grilling, or barbecuing generally produces the highest amounts of these contaminants.

The Institut National du Cancer from France recommends a consumption of 500 g of red meat per week and completing protein requirements by consuming white meat, fish, eggs and vegetables. It strongly emphasises the need to limit consumption of processed meat. The American Cancer Society, on the other hand, recommends limiting the intake of processed meat and red meat. Choosing fish, poultry or beans and lean cuts, and eating smaller portions are suggested as alternatives [Aykan 2015]. Clearly, excessive consumption of processed meat and red meat is strongly discouraged.

No need to cut down on red and processed meat for health reasons, controversial findings suggest

A very amazing new study has challenged years of nutrition advice by giving consumers the green light to eat more red and processed meat. The paper, authored by 19 scientists and published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, has surprised scientists and public health officials because it contradicts long-standing nutrition guidelines on limiting consumption of red and processed meats. The research, led by Johnston, an epidemiologist at Dalhousie University in Canada and first author of the paper [Johnston et al. 2019], concludes that warnings linking processed and red meat consumption to heart disease and cancer are not backed by strong scientific evidence. The authors suggest: that adults continue current unprocessed red meat consumption (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence). Similarly, the panel suggests adults continue current processed meat consumption (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence).

Several prominent nutrition scientists and health organizations criticised the study’s methods and findings. But Johnston and his colleagues defended their work, saying it relied on the highest standards of scientific evidence. Moreover, they emphasised that the large team of investigators reported no conflicts of interest and conducted the review without outside funding.

But what the study conveniently forgot to mention is that its lead author has past research ties to the meat and food industry. Could this really have been a slip of his mind?

Parker-Pope & O’Connor [2019] wrote that the authors of the paper defended their work, emphasising that the large team of investigators reported no conflicts of interest and conducted the review without external funding.

However, a few years earlier Johnston was the major (last) author working on a similar study that tried to discredit international health guidelines advising people to eat less sugar. The study concluded that: Guidelines on dietary sugar do not meet criteria for trustworthy recommendations and are based on low-quality evidence. Public health officials (when promulgating these recommendations) and their public audience (when considering dietary behavior) should be aware of these limitations. It also appeared in the Annals of Internal Medicine [Erickson et al. 2017] and was paid for by the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), an industry trade group that is largely supported by agribusiness as well as food and pharmaceutical companies [Parker-Pope & O’Connor 2019].

The ILSI-funded sugar study suggests (and also evidences) that ILSI has methodically cultivated allies in academia around the world; it shows how influential scientists are recruited to help shape global nutrition advice and call into question what it perceives to be anti-food industry guidelines by health organisations. When Johnston and his colleagues published the sugar study, they claimed that ILSI had no direct role in conducting the research other than providing funding. They later amended their disclosure statement after the Associated Press obtained emails, showing that ILSI had “reviewed” and “approved” the study’s protocol [Parker-Pope & O’Connor 2019].

Even if ILSI had nothing to do with the meat study, the fact remains that the authors have lost all credibility by providing incomplete disclosures. It is always better to fully disclose, if for no other reason than to stay out of trouble when undisclosed conflicts become known.

When one research group says the opposite of another

All too often people think that science creates certainties. In other words, if there is no certainty, then we are inclined to think that the scientific conclusions are wrong or at the very least incomplete. Science, however, is dynamic, it does not provide absolute certainties, but only the best possible expert consensus. This can be misused by those scientists who question the best contemporary scientific evidence and spread confusion on several crucial topics, including the safety of our food products, beverages and other consumer goods. This is the story of the merchants of doubt [Oreskes & Conway 2010].

Should companies and – worse still –  multinationals be allowed to lie to consumers? Can companies, industry trade groups and other lobby groups misrepresent or withhold relevant information? Needless to say that if all of us behaved in such a manner, the very concept of promise would lose all its substance and if everyone lied, any reliable information exchange would become impossible. Which is why to lie is immoral, because it falls short of society’s standards of what is considered acceptable and honest behaviour.

Could there also be another, hidden explanation? Could the idea be to keep the controversy alive? So long as there is some doubt about the causal link, the industry would be safe from regulation and litigation. To steadfastly deny the existence of scientific agreement may well be seen as a very profitable attitude!

 

Download the PDF

 

References

Aykan [2015]. Red meat and colorectal cancer, Oncology reviews 9, 1, 38 – 44

Bouvard et al. [2015]. Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed meat, The Lancet 16, 16, 1599 – 1600

Erickson et al. [2017]. The Scientific Basis of Guideline Recommendations on Sugar Intake: A Systematic Review, Annals of Internal Medicine 166, 4, 257 – 267

Johnston et al. [2019]. Unprocessed Red Meat and Processed Meat Consumption: Dietary Guideline Recommendations From the Nutritional Recommendations (NutriRECS) Consortium, Annals of Internal Medicine, 10.7326/M19-1621, pp. 11

Oreskes & Conway [2010]. Merchants of doubt, Bloomsbury Press, pp. 355

Parker-Pope & O’Connor [2019]. Scientist Who Discredited Meat Guidelines Didn’t Report Past Food Industry Ties, The New York Times, October 4

 

After a decade of steady decline, the number of people suffering from hunger in the world has been slowly increasing for several years in a row

It is a bad trend, World Food Program boss, David Beasley, said during a press conference at United Nations (UN) headquarters. He warned: Without food security, we will never have peace and stability! Wherever extremist groups have influence, hunger is used by them as a weapon to divide or recruit.

Hunger in the world continues to affect ever more people because of conflicts and climate change

According to the annual report [FAO 2019] published last July by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the UN, 821.6 million people were suffering from undernourishment in 2018 against 811 million the previous year. These figures highlight the immense challenge of achieving the Zero Hunger Target, one of 17 global goals that make up the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustainable-development-goals.html). This goal is out of reach, said David Beasley, who found it galling that there is more talk in the media of Donald Trump and Brexit than of children who are starving all over the world.

A broader look at the extent of food insecurity, beyond hunger, shows that ~1.3 billion people or 17.2 % of the world population have experienced food insecurity at moderate levels. The FAO defines food insecurity as: a situation that exists when people lack secure access to sufficient amounts of safe and nutritious food for normal growth and development and for an active and healthy life [Napoli et al. 2011]. Even if they do not actually suffer from hunger, food insecure people are at a greater risk of experiencing various forms of malnutrition and poor health. The combination of moderate and severe levels of food insecurity brings the estimate to a total of some 2 billion people.

In Western high-income countries, sizeable portions of the population also lack regular access to nutritious and sufficient food. It is estimated that 8 % of the populations in Northern America and Europe are food insecure, mainly at moderate levels of severity. The hunger will not disappear!

Overweight and obesity are rising in most countries

The report [FAO 2019] also takes a closer look at data on overweight and obesity, a recent and serious public health challenge that affects people of all ages. Obesity (as well as overweight) has reached epidemic proportions globally, contributing to ~4 million deaths every year. Moreover, the increase in the prevalence of obesity between 2000 and 2016 has been faster than that of overweight. No region remains unaffected by the epidemic.

The prevalence of overweight is increasing in all age groups, with particularly steep increases among school-age children and adults. Throughout the world, most school-age children do not eat enough fruit and vegetables, regularly consume fast food and carbonated soft drinks, and are not physically active on a daily basis. Multifaceted, multisectoral approaches are needed to halt and reverse this worrying trend. Policies to protect, promote and support breastfeeding and to increase the availability and affordability a healthy diet ‒ preferably free of chemical contaminants ‒ are required, along with measures to create healthier food environments and limit the consumption of harmful fats, salt and sugars [Trasande 2019].

The fall in childhood stunting is too slow and anaemia in women persists

It is encouraging to note that the number of stunted children has declined by ~10 % over the past six years even though this rate of reduction is too slow to achieve the 2030 target of a 50 % reduction in the number of stunted children.

In the next 10 years, urgent action is also needed to achieve other global nutrition targets. Only ~40 % of infants under 6 months are exclusively breastfed, which is far from the 2030 target of 70 %. In 2018, 7.3 % of children were neglected, and this must be reduced by more than half to reach the target of less than 3 % by 2030. Anaemia currently affects ~33 % of women of reproductive age – more than twice the 2030 target of 15 %.

Low birth weight estimates are also included in this year’s edition of the report [FAO 2019]. Recent global estimates indicate that one in 7 live births, or ~20.5 million babies globally, suffered from low birth weight in 2015. Moreover, evidence shows that no progress has been made in reducing the prevalence of low birth weight since 2012. Hence, it will be extremely difficult to achieve the World Health Assembly global goal of a 30 % reduction in the prevalence of low birth weight infants by 2030. This is a cause for concern, since low birth weight newborns have a higher risk of dying during the first month of life. Moreover, those who survive are more likely to suffer from stunted growth and face increased risk of adult-onset chronic conditions, including obesity and diabetes.

Most countries that experienced a rise in undernourishment between 2011 and 2017 simultaneously suffered an economic slowdown or downturn

Economic shocks have also prolonged and worsened the impact of conflicts and climate events on acute food insecurity, requiring urgent humanitarian assistance in food crisis countries. In more than half the countries affected by food crises in 2018, the compounding impact of multiple economic shocks worsened the severity of acute food insecurity, affecting ~96 million people. Where inequality is greater, economic slowdowns and downturns have a disproportionate effect on food security and nutrition for lower-income populations.

The report [FAO 2019] calls for action on two fronts. First, safeguarding food security and nutrition through economic and social policies that help counteract the effects of economic slowdowns or downturns. This includes the funding of social safety nets and ensuring universal access to health and education. And, second, tackling existing inequalities at all levels through multisectoral policies that make it possible to more sustainably escape from food insecurity and malnutrition.

The FAO identified two main reasons for the new global hunger rise since 2015

Global warming weighs on the agricultural yields and the competitiveness of producing countries, and conflicts, particularly in Africa and in the Middle East, cause severe food shortages. Climate variability as well as climate extremes are key factors in the latest resurgence of hunger and one of the main causes of serious food crises. By 2050, decreases in agricultural production are being forcast in the areas most affected by the rise in climatic hazards, more specifically in vulnerable regions of Africa, Asia and Latin America.

Since hungry people are most often peasants or fishermen living in remote rural areas, a possible solution is to raise their living standard by creating “value chains”. This means producing locally, but especially processing and selling or exporting. Basically, agro-food and logistics investments must be given priority in rural areas. It will also fix populations tempted by migration.

Another proposed option is the fight against food waste. In Africa, a fair proportion of the agricultural or food products are damaged even before reaching a market, because of lack of storage capacity (e.g. freezers and cold rooms) or transport and logistics. Moreover, in order to adapt to climate change, many farmers in southern countries are requiring access to quality seeds. They are resistant to drought and pests and are believed to guarantee rich harvests.

The proponents of agro-ecology believe it is possible to feed a world population of even ~10 billion people. Agricultural production models that are able to adapt to climate change and combat its effects must be developed. Our world needs sophisticated agronomic models that are close to nature. This can be achieved by mixing species to increase plant resistance to pests, lengthening crop rotation times and covering bare soils with plants to fight erosion and store carbon. Such models also include a reduced use of synthetic pesticides [Pussemier & Goeyens 2017].

An empty stomach is not a good political adviser (Albert Einstein)!

 

Download PDF

 

FAO [2019]. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World, pp. 239

Napoli et al. [2011]. Towards a food insecurity Multidimensional Index (FIMI), Master in Human Development and Food Security, pp. 72

Pussemier & Goeyens [2017]. AgricultureS et Enjeux de Société, Presses Universitaires de Liège, Agronomie – Gembloux, pp. 112

Trasande [2019]. Sicker, Fatter, Poorer, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, New York, pp. 221

Here is something to think about. Several studies have shown that current trends in yield improvement will not be sufficient to meet the global food demand by 2050. They suggest that a further expansion of agricultural area will be required. Agriculture however is a main driver of biodiversity losses and a major contributor to climate change and environmental pollution. Hence, food will have to be produced sustainably in ways that address environmental challenges and contribute to significant reductions of both climate change and environmental pollution [Tilman et al. 2011; Bajželj et al. 2014; Pussemier & Goeyens 2017]. Future food production will be sustainable or will simply not be.

It should also be remembered that human health is influenced more by food than by any other single factor. Facilitating healthy diets is critical for individual well-being and will limit the costs for the treatment of illnesses [GBD 2017 Causes of Death Collaborators 2018].

World leaders at the 2012 Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) reaffirmed everyone’s right to have access to safe and nutritious food, consistent with the right to adequate food and with the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger. The UN Secretary-General’s Zero Hunger Challenge launched at Rio+20 called on governments, civil society, faith communities, the private sector, and research institutions to unite to end hunger and to eliminate the worst forms of malnutrition [https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/topics/foodagriculture]. Today, it is generally acknowledged that malnutrition in all its forms, including obesity, under-nutrition and several other dietary risks, is the leading cause of poor health. Three pandemics – obesity, under-nutrition, and climate change – constitute a syndemic, or synergy of epidemics, because they co-occur in time and place, interact with each other to produce complex and severe sequelae, and share common underlying societal drivers [Swinburn et al. 2019].

The current trajectory of the food system will therefore have to adopt new and better technologies; more transformative technical and policy options will be needed [Springmann et al. 2016 & 2018; Wollenberg et al. 2016]. The food sector has been relatively slow at capitalizing on recent technological advances [World Economic Forum 2018] and how this sector will develop is not quite clear. But there is a possibility of genuine disruption in the near future. Alternative proteins and meat substitutes attract considerable financial investment, research attention and interest in the media as a pathway to meeting nutritional needs as well as the food demands of a predicted population of ~10 billion people by 2050 [World Economic Forum 2019a].

 

Meat has a special place in human diets. Modern human beings have an innate preference for meat as it is both energy dense and protein rich. However, it would not be possible for a global population of ~10 billion people to continue to eat the amount of meat typical of North American and European diets and keep within the agreed sustainable development goals for the environment and climate. Livestock production can have major negative effects on the environment [Tilman et al. 2011; Pussemier & Goeyens 2017]. Moreover, the consumption of red meat and processed meat in particular has substantial effects on people’s health [Carr et al. 2018; Alshahrani et al. 2019; Cui et al. 2019]. It is obvious that meat production and consumption pose a special challenge to the future development of the global food system [Godfray et al. 2018].

On the other hand, rearing, distributing and selling animal-sourced food is responsible for the livelihood of millions of people. It has been estimated that ~3 % of gross global productivity is from agriculture, of which 40 % is from livestock. It provides livelihoods for ~1 billion people, predominantly living in low-income countries. Moreover, meat consumption is soaring across the world with no sign of a plateau in sight and with Asia rapidly converging on “Western” consumption levels [World Economic Forum 2019b]. This trend is incompatible with ensuring that global temperatures do not rise by more than 2 degrees Celsius (let alone 1.5 degree). This way, we will never meet the sustainable development goals!

 

Alternative proteins, improvements to current production systems, and consumer behaviour change are excellent pathways to meet our needs. In recent years, there has been a burst of innovation involving new purely plant-based alternatives, products based on insects and other novel protein sources such as microorganisms, and the application of cutting-edge biotechnology to develop laboratory cultured meat.

Protein-rich plants used in unprocessed forms (e.g. lentils), edible microbial biomass, processed products such as soy-based tofu and wheat-based seiten, or the recent innovations seeking to make vegetable burgers and other products that are almost indistinguishable from real meat all illustrate the newest developments. To date, commercially successful novel products are based on protein derived from microorganisms [Moura et al. 2018; Linder 2019]. Microorganisms such as bacteria, yeasts and filamentous fungi have several beneficial properties, including their rapid growth rate and their ability to assimilate simple organic substrates such as hydrocarbons, alcohols or organic acids. Microbial biomass has high protein content and often contains beneficial lipids and vitamins. An additional advantage is that industrial-scale production of edible microorganisms does not require arable land and consequently, these types of facilities can be located on marginal lands or even more extreme environments such as arid regions.

Insects have also received considerable attention, in particular because they can be reared on feed that is unsuitable for livestock and which would otherwise be wasted or have low economic value [van Huis 2013]. Innovation in this area also includes the discovery and investigation of new insect species for food production and developments in how they may be produced economically at scale. They can be consumed in their natural state. Moreover, to increase acceptability in cultures where insect consumption is not traditional, there is also research into the development of novel products that contain insects in a different form, for instance as flour.

Producing meat in the laboratory without the involvement of living animals is a huge technical achievement made possible by the Fourth Industrial Revolution [Kadim et al. 2015]. Only recently have technologies advanced enough to make this happen, with forms of meat that might be used in products which traditionally contain minced meat. It is therefore conceivable that “laboratory burgers” will be available to the consumer within the next few years. Through more fundamental research that is required in stem cell technology and muscle development and in its medical applications in fields such as wound healing, there is a real prospect of rapid advances in the consumable meat sector in the next decade [Post 2014]. In addition to producing products that resemble meat, some “food futurologists” also envisage new products outside our current sensory experience that will create new food cultures.

The headline “Scientists are growing meat on blades of grass” caught my eye. What if you could grow a burger in the same way as you grow grass? Charlton [2019] reports that scientists at the university of Bath are taking cells from pigs and cows and growing them on blades of grass, joining a host of other researchers and companies who are now working on meat production in the laboratory. The cells are harvested by biopsy and fed a solution of glucose, amino acids, vitamins and minerals, which helps them develop into mature muscle cells.

No doubt, alternative ways of making protein are rising in popularity as the earth’s population grows and people in developing countries are beginning to consume more meat. The World Economic Forum [2019a] report highlights the positives of meat alternatives, including boosting food security and animal welfare, reducing the risk of food poisoning and cutting down the environmental impact of producing protein. The report also acknowledges there are still some technical, socio-political and regulatory challenges to overcome before widespread adoption of the new technology.

Our relationship with meat and livestock farming is complex and achieving widespread adoption will probably take time. People may regard alternatives as “unnatural” and therefore unappealing, and they may distrust the modern commercial food system and the way in which food is processed. Novel products may be rejected on principle or because of a “yuck factor” [World Economic Forum 2019a]. For the foreseeable future, the meat and alternative protein industries will coexist and be given an opportunity to complement one other.

Meat without bones: I will be interested to see how consumers experience the introduction of laboratory meat. And I am eager to know when it will be available and curious to know what it will taste like.

 

DOWNLOAD THE PDF

 

Alshahrani et al. [2019]. Red and Processed Meat and Mortality in a Low Meat Intake Population, Nutrients 11, 3, 622

Bajželj et al. [2014]. Importance of food-demand management for climate mitigation, Nature Climate Change 4, 10, pp. 20

Carr et al. [2018]. Association Between Intake of Red and Processed Meat and Survival in Patients With Colorectal Cancer in a Pooled Analysis, Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, in press

Charlton [2019]. Scientists are growing meat on blades of grass, World Economic Forum, available at https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/04/scientists-are-growing-meat-on-blades-of-grass/

Cui et al. [2019]. Association between intake of red and processed meat and the risk of heart failure: a meta-analysis, BMC Public Health 19, 1, 354

GBD 2017 Causes of Death Collaborators [2018]. Global, regional, and national age-sex-specific mortality for 282 causes of death in 195 countries and territories, 1980–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017, Lancet 392, 1736 – 1788

Godfray et al. [2018]. Meat consumption, health, and the environment, Science 361, eaam5324, pp. 8

Kadim et al. [2015]. Cultured meat from muscle stem cells: A review of challenges and prospects, Journal of Integrative Agriculture 14, 2, 222 – 233

Linder [2019]. Edible microorganisms–an overlooked technology option to counteract agricultural expansion, Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 3, 32

Moura et al. [2018]. Penicillium Sclerotiorum Biomass as a Potential Food Product, Chemical Engineering Transactions 64, 13 – 18

Post [2014]. Cultured beef: Medical technology to produce food, Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 94, 6, 1039 – 1041

Pussemier & Goeyens [2017]. AgricultureS & Enjeux de société, Presses Universitaires de Liège – Agronomie, Gembloux, pp. 112

Springmann et al. [2016]. Analysis and valuation of the health and climate change cobenefits of dietary change, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113, 15, 4146 – 4151

Springmann et al. [2018]. Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits, Nature 562, 519 ‑ 525

Swinburn et al. 2019. The Global Syndemic of Obesity, Undernutrition, and Climate Change: The Lancet Commission report, Lancet 393, 791 – 846

Tilman et al. [2011]. Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108, 50, 20260 – 20264

Van Huis et al. [2013]. Edible insects, Future prospects for food and feed security, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, pp. 201

Wollenberg et al. [2016]. Reducing emissions from agriculture to meet the 2 °C target, Global Change Biology 22, 3859 – 3864

World Economic Forum [2018]. Innovation with a Purpose – The role of technology innovation in accelerating food systems transformation, pp. 42

World Economic Forum [2019a]. Meat: the Future series – Alternative Proteins (White Paper), pp. 32

World Economic Forum [2019b]. Meat: the Future series – Options for the Livestock Sector in Developing and Emerging Economies to 2030 and Beyond, pp. 28

 

… Everything that has built modern human society is provided by nature and, increasingly, research demonstrates the natural world’s incalculable importance to our health, wealth, food and security… [Grooten & Almond 2018].

 

The World Wildlife Fund has released its annual Living Planet Report and it makes quite a depressing read. Wildlife populations, including mammals, reptiles, amphibians, birds and fish, have fallen by 60 % between 1970 and 2014. This represents a staggering and tragic loss of non-human life and ecological heritage. Moreover, the World Wildlife Fund emphasises that our health and food depend on biodiversity [Grooten & Almond 2018].

For many years we have known that we are driving the planet to the very brink. This is not a doom and gloom story, but shocking reality. The terrible decline in wildlife populations is a grim reminder and perhaps the ultimate indicator of the pressure we exert on planet Earth. Science was never clearer about the consequences of anthropogenic impacts. The current geological age, seen as the period during which human activity has been ¾ and still is ¾ the dominant influence on climate and the environment, is called the Anthropocene [Crutzen 2005; Lewis and Maslin 2015]. But science also provides us with the know-how and means to redefine and improve our relationship with the planet. Today, there is no longer any excuse for inaction. There cannot be a healthy, happy and prosperous future for people on a planet with a destabilised climate, depleted oceans and rivers, degraded land and empty forests, all stripped of biodiversity.

 

We have no reason at all to disagree with this, but framing the loss of wild species in terms of a threat to human civilisation and material well-being is a questionable proposition. The decline in animal populations, which is well documented by Grooten & Almond [2018], is highly tragic and painful news for nature and wildlife enthusiasts. And yet, Blomqvist [2019] claims that it is not clear whether the recent and huge losses of species and populations really constitute a threat to human material well-being. According to this author, overall well-being and quality of life are certainly affected, but the same may not be true for material well-being. For example, the world’s poorest and most vulnerable populations live in tropical regions such as the Congo Basin which are rich in biodiversity. At the same time, many Europeans are well-fed and enjoy high living standards, even though their landscapes have been significantly transformed and wild species populations have been serously depleted.

The author states that humans altered their environment to better serve their needs, e.g. by converting natural habitats into cropland or by prefering easier to breed cattle that provided more food and higher profits than the American bison and European wisent. As a result, he has a hard time arguing in good faith that further wildlife losses per se would prove catastrophic to the material basis of societies [Blomqvist 2019].

 

Obviously, a delicate balance must exist between all living organisms in order to sustain healthy ecosystems. This balance however has been upset by human involvement, and there are many forces driving this unprecedented destruction.

Humans use plants and animals in many aspects of their daily lives: food, clothing, medicines, souvenirs, pets and building supplies are just few examples. Humans fulfil these needs by extracting ore and depleting natural resources, cutting down rainforests, overfishing rivers and oceans, poaching endangered animals and overhunting important species. Isn’t this more than Mother Nature can provide?

Many human activities and developments generate dramatic pollution. Waterways are polluted with the runoff from manufacturing facilities, factory farms, and the gas and oil that collects on roadways. Mining practices discard unusable heavy metals and minerals into soils and water sources [Mandal & Suzuki 2002; Hanna-Attisha et al. 2016]. Air is polluted by the fumes from traffic and burning fossil fuels. Pesticides sprayed onto crops inadvertently kill other plant species as well as animals living in the fields. Of all anthropogenic drivers that affect pollinators and pollination, the spraying of pesticides can substantially damage the survival of bee colonies [Kerr 2017]. Garbage and litter disposal fills the land with non-biodegradable plastics that will eventually be consumed by animals on land and in sea and ultimately by humans [Rainieri & Barranco 2019]. All of these reasons explain why pollution is directly responsible for the loss of wildlife biodiversity. Moreover, all greenhouse gases released into the air not only have a direct impact on the quality of air and water, but also lead to increased global temperatures, natural disasters, and glacial melting [Pussemier & Goeyens 2017]. Global climate change also exterminates the planet’s wildlife.

Metals and minerals, fumes, pesticides, micro-plastics, greenhouse gases, etc. are chemical substances. They are molecules and cannot distinguish between humans and animals. They affect all the living beings they encounter.

 

It is obvious that nobody wants to fall ill. Exposure to environmental pollution however remains a major source of health risk the world over [Briggs 2003]. Metabolic disease rates have increased dramatically over the last four decades. Classic understanding of metabolic physiology has attributed these global trends to decreased physical activity and caloric excess. But these traditional risk factors cannot explain the magnitude and speed of metabolic health deterioration [Sargis et al. 2019]. Recently, the part played by environmental metabolism-disrupting chemicals (MDC) in causing various metabolic diseases (including obesity, diabetes, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, and neuro-behavioural abnormalities) is beginning to be recognised. As the burgeoning body of evidence matures, various organic as well as inorganic MDC of human and natural origin are now being considered as metabolic disease risk factors.

Recognition of these formerly under-appreciated metabolic stressors must now lead to efforts to mitigate the devastating consequences of metabolic disease by addressing environmental drivers of disease risk. So far, there have been insufficient adequate recommendations to reduce exposures or mitigate the effects of exposure on disease outcomes.

 

 

 

This can only be described as a vital challenge for the future and well-being of all populations including humans! Today, the Belgian youth has taken to the streets for a better climate and Belgian politicians are doing their utmost to show that they too are concerned. Hopefully, they will now understand that climate change is so much more than global warming and a rising sea level.

 

Download the PDF

 

Blomqvist [2019]. Does wildlife loss threaten civilization?, available online at https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/conservation/does-wildlife-loss-threaten-civilization

Briggs [2003]. Environmental pollution and the global burden of disease, British Medical Bulletin 68, 1, 1 – 24

Crutzen [2006]. The “anthropocene”, in Earth system science in the anthropocene, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 13 – 18

Grooten & Almond [2018]. Living Planet Report – 2018: Aiming Higher, WWF, Gland, Switzerland

Hanna-Attisha et al. [2016]. Elevated Blood Lead Levels in Children Associated With the Flint Drinking Water Crisis: A Spatial Analysis of Risk and Public Health Response, American Journal of Public Health 106, 283 – 290

Kerr [2017]. A cocktail of toxins, Science 356, 6345, 1331 – 1333

Lewis & Maslin [2015]. Defining the anthropocene, Nature 519, 7542, 171

Mandal & Suzuki [2002]. Arsenic round the world: a review, Talanta 58, 201 – 235

Pussemier & Goeyens [2017]. AgricultureS & Enjeux de société, Presses Universitaires de Liège – Agronomie, Gembloux, pp. 112

Rainieri & Barranco [2019]. Microplastics, a food safety issue?, Trends in Food Science & Technology 84, 55 – 57

Sargis et al. [2019]. Interventions to Address Environmental Metabolism-Disrupting Chemicals: Changing the Narrative to Empower Action to Restore Metabolic Health, Frontiers in Endocrinology 10, article 33, pp. 18

This Latin expression ⎯ nihil novi sub sole, there is nothing new under the sun ⎯ appeared in the Vulgate Bible phrase, now in Ecclesiastes 1:9. I add a question mark to the quote.

Rachel Carson (1907 – 1964) was an American marine biologist, author, and conservationist whose writings are credited with advancing the global environmental movement. Silent Spring, her “fable for tomorrow” published in 1962, exposed the destruction of wildlife through the widespread use of pesticides. Her passionate concern is with the future of the planet and all life on Earth. She calls for humans to act responsibly, carefully, and as stewards of the living earth. She also suggests a change in how democracies and liberal societies should operate so that individuals as well as groups could question which chemicals their governments allowed others to put into the environment.

… For the first time in the history of the world, every human being is now subjected to contact with dangerous chemicals, from the moment of conception until death. In the less than two decades of their use, the synthetic pesticides have been so thoroughly distributed throughout the animate and inanimate world that they occur virtually everywhere. They have been recovered from most of the major river systems and even from streams of ground-water flowing unseen through the earth. Residues of these chemicals linger in soil to which they may have been applied a dozen years before. They have entered and lodged in the bodies of fish, birds, reptiles, and domestic and wild animals so universally that scientists carrying on animal experiments find it almost impossible to locate subjects free from such contamination… [Chapter 3 – Elixirs of Death].

Theo Colborn (1927 – 2014) was Founder and President Emerita of The Endocrine Disruption Exchange, based in Paonia, Colorado, and Professor Emerita of Zoology at the University of Florida, Gainesville. With scientist Pete Myers and environmental journalist Dianne Dumanski she published Our Stolen Future in 1996. Picking up where Silent Spring left off this book gives an utterly gripping account that traces birth defects, sexual abnormalities, and reproductive failures to their source, the man-made chemicals that disrupt delicate hormone systems and derail development. Humans appear not at all immune to the effects of endocrine disrupting chemicals.

… Consider, however, what it might mean for our society if synthetic chemicals are subtly undermining human intelligence across the entire population in the same manner that they have apparently undermined human male sperm count. With the current average IQ score of 100, a population of 100 million will have 2.3 million intellectually gifted people who score above 130. Though it might not sound like much, if the average were to drop just like five points to 95, it would have “staggering” implications, according to Bernard Weiss, a behavioral toxicologist at the University of Rochester who has considered the societal impact of seemingly small losses. Instead of 2.3 million, only 990,000 would score over 130, so this society would have lost over half of its high-powered minds with the capacity to become the most gifted doctors, scientists, college professors, inventors or writers… [Chapter 13 – Loomings].

Leonardo Trasande is an internationally renowned leader in children’s environmental health and the Jim G. Hendrick, MD, Associate Professor and Vice Chair for Research of the Department of Pediatrics at New York University. In his urgent book, Sicker, Fatter, Poorer, that was published this month he explains the science behind the escalating obesity, diabetes, learning disorders, autism, infertility, and food allergies which most likely result from endocrine disrupting chemicals in our food, our homes, and our personal care products.

… The chemicals with the strongest evidence of health effects are pesticides, flame retardants, plasticizer chemicals, and bisphenols, which are used to line food and beverage cans. At first it was thought that those chemicals had to persist in the body to cause harm, like a viral or bacterial infection. Now we realize that though the chemicals themselves are often excreted within a few days, they leave lasting effects. And here is the scariest piece: the effects of this chemical contact can reverberate years later and even be passed on to the next generation. That is what I call the “hit-and-run” impact of these pernicious chemicals… [Chapter 1 – What’s going on?].

It is true to say that there is nothing new under the sun. An unrestrained and careless use of chemicals may even exacerbate an already precarious situation. Silent Spring, Our Stolen Future, and Sicker, Fatter, Poorer are must-read books for scientists as wel as for non-scientist.

All I need to do now is to wish you a good reading.

Download the PDF

A really fascinating note at the forefront of the scientific news on October 4: Scientists call for “Noah’s Ark” of human microbes to prevent growing global health crisis. We owe future generations the microbes that colonised our ancestors for at least 200000 years of human evolution [https://www.independent.co.uk/]

Are we losing this ?

The most extraordinary feature of life is its diversity. In the Anthropocene era, the present era, during which human activities are exerting ever increasing impacts on the environment and in many ways outcompeting the natural processes, environmental sustainability became our biggest issue [Crutzen 2006]. Moreover, human activities are now significant geological forces, for instance through changes in land use, deforestation and fossil fuel burning. Therefore, it is justified to assign the term “anthropocene” to the current geological epoch.

Increasing populations along with tremendous escalations in anthropogenic activities have raised questions about the sustainability of the natural resources. Today, no part of the Earth is untouched by the effect of human activities. Global pollution is among the greatest threats to life and well-being. Ever increasing human populations and inherent increases in consumption per capita have put great constraint on the natural resources. Additionally, urbanization, industrialization, and intensive agricultural practices have polluted our water resources, air and soil all around the globe. The natural resources are overexploited and, even worse, they become contaminated with toxic chemicals, making the survival of future generations more difficult.

Animals and plants are being wiped out faster and faster. According to recent estimates, the Earth is going through one of the biggest biodiversity loss phases, the impact of which is unforeseen. The diversity of life on Earth is dramatically affected by human alterations of ecosystems; and there is compelling evidence that the reverse is also true. Biodiversity in the broad sense[1] affects the properties of ecosystems and, therefore, the assets that humans obtain from them. Moreover, biodiversity has always been an integral part of the human experience, and this is why there are many moral reasons for a careful and intelligent use.

What has been less recognized is that biodiversity also influences human well-being, including the access to water and basic resources for a satisfactory life, and security in the face of global change. Ecosystem processes are at the basis of the Earth’s most vital life support systems [Diaz et al. 2006]. Here lies the nub of the problem: the human-caused rate of extinction of species at present is hundreds of times higher than the natural rate in the past and could well be thousands of times higher in a near future [Arora 2018].

In addition to all the above, there could be another tragic extinction crisis under way, in the human guts and skins. Dominguez-Bello et al. [2018] warn that humanity faces a serious health crisis as many of the beneficial microbes that inhabit people’s bodies are being eradicated. Overuse of antibiotics and excess consumption of processed food products – typical ailments of our contemporary society – are dangerous habits.

 

Looking for the healthy microbiome. In 2008, a team of doctors and scientists ventured deep within the Venezuelan jungle and characterized the fecal, oral, and skin bacterial microbiome[2] and resistome[3] of members of an isolated Yanomami Amerindian village with no documented previous contact with Western people [Clemente et al. 2015]. An exceptional opportunity for Maria Gloria Dominguez-Bello, a microbiologist at the New York University department of Medicine. She was born in Venezuela and has been working in the Amazon for more than 20 years. Her research focuses primarily on the human microbiome, the hundreds of trillions of bacteria and other microbes that colonize our bodies and outnumber our own cells by a factor of ~10.

Yes, we aren’t just single individuals walking on the Earth, we are walking ecosystems!

The microbiome has emerged as one of the hottest areas of biomedical research. Dominguez-Bello’s team investigates microbiome development from birth, functions for the host, impact by practices that reduce microbial transmission or disrupt the microbiota, and strategies for restoration. They also study how Westernization changes environmental microbes and human exposures, integrating the fields of anthropology and architecture/urban studies into microbial ecology. A holistic understanding of the role of the Earth’s microbial community and its genome – its microbiome – in the biosphere and in human health is key to meeting many of the challenges that face humanity in the 21^th century [Dubilier et al. 2015].

We know microorganisms digest the food we eat and provide us with valuable nutrients, they prevent the growth of harmful microbes and regulate our immune systems, they influence our risk of obesity and other health problems, and they determine how effectively we process the medicines we take. If we are to truly understand our health, we need to understand our microbes, especially since they are under assault from numerous foibles of our modern way of life. Fatty, calorific diets dramatically change the communities of microbes in our guts. Antibiotics kill them as readily as they kill harmful bugs. Then the question arises whether the current microbiome composition is still suitable for dealing with all the “modern” challenges. And if that were not the case, it is necessary to check what the most appropriate microbiome composition should look like.

That is why the Yanonami Amerindian people are so important. Investigating the natives of the Venezuelan jungle at least offers a glimpse at those microbiomes, that are beyond the influence of mainstream civilization. It is no surprise at all that the results of the investigation [Clemente et al. 2015] suggested that westernization has significantly affected human microbiome diversity. These Yanomami harbor a microbiome with the highest diversity of bacteria and genetic functions ever reported in a human group. Despite their isolation, presumably for ~11000 years since their ancestors arrived in South America, and no known exposure to antibiotics, they harbor bacteria that carry functional antibiotic resistance (AR) genes, including those that confer resistance to synthetic antibiotics and are syntenic with mobilization elements. These results suggest that westernization significantly affects human microbiome diversity and that functional AR genes appear to be a feature of the human microbiome even in the absence of exposure to commercial antibiotics. AR genes are likely poised for mobilization and enrichment upon exposure to pharmacological levels of antibiotics. The latter findings emphasize the need for an extensive characterization of the function of the microbiome and resistome in remote nonwesternized populations before globalization of modern practices affects potentially beneficial bacteria harbored in the human body.

 

An unprecedented, ambitious plan to deal with a problem of similar scale to climate change. The rates of diseases such as diabetes, asthma and allergies have spiralled, and many researchers have suggested that the increased occurrence is due to significant losses in our microbiota. Human evolution and lifestyle changes, caused by both the agricultural and industrial revolutions, led to great advances in medicine and increased our life expectancy. But at the same time they also profoundly altered the ecological relationships and disease patterns of the populations [Valle Gottlieb et al. 2017]. Studies involving populations, that still enjoy a rural way of life and with traits similar to the Paleolithic period, show that their gut microbiota are more robust, resistant and diverse in comparison to those of highly industrialized civilizations. The human diet has expanded and broadened to include the consumption of high-calorie foods, particularly from animal sources. For some time, authors have been alert to the fact that modern lifestyle and eating habits lead to reduced intake of beneficial bacteria. This suggests that nonpathogenic, beneficial bacteria are being eradicated by our currently predominant consumption of processed foods and use of antibiotics.

Dominguez-Bello et al. [2018] delivered a very ambitious paper to solve this problem. They plan to capture and preserve the diversity of the human microbiota – they plan to build a Noah’s Ark for the survival of germs – collected from people living in untouched, remote corners of the world, who have not been impacted by modern society and/or processed foods.

In recent years, the human gut microbiota have emerged as a primary target area for health monitoring and modulation [Cho & Blaser 2012; Lozupone et al. 2012]. Alterations in the gut microbiota have been linked repeatedly to pathological states such as infections, autoimmune disorders, inflammatory bowel diseases and cancer. Researchers now believe that it will ultimately be possible to prevent diseases by reintroducing lost microbes [Vandeputte et al. 2017]. However, for this to happen humanity’s ancestral microbial heritage must be preserved. Dominguez-Bello et al. [2018] suggest the best way to achieve this objective is to collect beneficial microbes of populations from remote Latin American and African areas. Those microbes co-evolved with humans over tens or hundreds of millennia. They can help us digest our foods, strengthen our immune systems and protect us against invading germs, infections or allergic reactions.

Over a handful of generations, we have seen a staggering loss in microbial diversity and a simultaneous worldwide increase in immune and other disorders. For that matter, we observe that so-called biobanking initiatives are springing up in research institutions around the world. So far, most of them have only focused on samples from industrialised nations. However, it is of equal or even greater importance that non-industrialized nations are sampled also.

The international effort to preserve a greater diversity of microbiota will require enormous investments, but the rewards will make the effort worthwile. Dominguez-Bello et al. [2018] conclude that we owe future generations the microbes, that colonised our ancestors for ~200000 years of human evolution. And we must begin before it is too late. It is highly urgent that we improve the ecosystems we live in; and at the same time we need to improve the ecosystems that live in us.

 

Download the pdf

 

 

Arora [2018]. Environmental Sustainability—necessary for survival, Environmental Sustainability 1, 1 – 2

Cho & Blaser [2012]. The human microbiome: at the interface of health and disease, Nature Reviews Genetics 13, 260 – 270

Clemente et al. [2015]. The microbiome of uncontacted Amerindians, Science advances 1, 3, e1500183, pp. 12.

Crutzen [2006]. The “anthropocene”, in Ehlers & Moss (eds.) Earth system science in the anthropocene, Springer, Berlin & Heidelberg, 13 – 18

Davis [2018]. The human microbiome: why our microbes could be key to our health, The Guardian, March 26, https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/26/the-human-microbiome-why-our-microbes-could-be-key-to-our-health

Diaz et al. [2006]. Biodiversity Loss Threatens Human Well-Being, PLoS Biology 4, 8, e277, pp. 6

Dominguez-Bello et al. [2018]. Preserving microbial diversity, Science 362, 6410, 33 – 34

Dubilier et al. [2015]. Create a global microbiome effort, Nature News 526, 7575, 631 – 634

Valle Gottlieb et al. [2017]. Impact of human aging and modern lifestyle on gut microbiota, Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 58, 9, 1557 – 1564

Vandeputte et al. [2017]. Practical considerations for large-scale gut microbiome studies, FEMS Microbiology Reviews 41, S154 – S167

Wright [2007]. The antibiotic resistome: the nexus of chemical and genetic diversity, Nature Reviews 5, 175 – 186

[1] Biodiversity in the broad sense is the number, abundance, composition, spatial distribution, and interactions of genotypes, populations, species, functional types and traits, and landscape units in a given system [Diaz et al. 2006].

[2] Human bodies harbour a huge array of micro-organisms. While bacteria are the biggest players, they also host single-celled organisms known as archaea, as well as fungi, viruses and other microbes. Together these are dubbed the human microbiota. Our body’s microbiome is all the genes these microbiota contains [Davis 2018].

[3] The antibiotic resistome is the collection of all the antibiotic resistance genes, including those usually associated with pathogenic bacteria isolated in the clinics, non-pathogenic antibiotic producing bacteria and all other resistance genes [Wright 2007].