Quand le lobby du patronat européen veut « minimiser » les efforts climatiques (When the European employers’ lobby wants to “minimize” the climate efforts): on September 19 Aude Massiot published a strikingly disturbing article in Libération . The original information is available on EURACTIV .
Remember the summer of 2018. Looking at the average temperature measured by the Royal Meteorological Institute in Brussels, last summer broke records. We experienced the hottest summer since the start of the measurements in 1901. Moreover, the Belgian summer was not only hot, it was also extremely dry. But this was not unique. Europe was more overheated and drier than usual. The forest fires in Scandinavia and Portugal could hardly be extinguished. Temperatures broke records across Europe, with maxima as high as 48 degrees in central Spain and Greece. Those meteorological conditions pose a threat to human life. The human body can not bear that. Heat waves can harm anyone, even the young and healthy, in ways that extend far beyond cardiovascular diseases [Mora et al. 2017].
On the other side of the world murderous typhoons blew over Taiwan, Japan, the Philippines as well as the east coast of the USA. When they reach populated areas, they bring very strong winds and rain which leave a trail of death and destruction.
Everybody who has but little common sense understands that climate changes. We face a change in global and regional climate patterns; in particular a change apparent from the mid to late 20th century onwards and largely attributed to the increased levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases [Pussemier & Goeyens 2017]. Europeans are certainly feeling the devastating effects of climate change; the summer heatwave and drought saw the European Union (EU) dig deep to bail out helpless farmers.
In those circumstances, the BusinessEurope internal memo is particularly daunting. A leaked internal memo, obtained by EURACTIV, gives a rare glimpse into the communication strategy of Europe’s main business lobby group. The memo recommends to oppose a new increase in the EU’s climate ambition, using the usual arguments that Europe cannot take action on its own, and should seek a level playing field with global competitors before making any moves. Why should they stick their neck out?
Mr Miguel Arias Canete, the EU climate action commissioner, had suggested updating the EU’s greenhouse gas reduction target for 2030, arguing that the EU’s level of ambition had “de facto” been raised after an agreement was struck on renewables and energy efficiency targets earlier in June. That was however backed by Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and later Chancellor Angela Merkel also spoke out against revising the EU’s climate objectives.
The BusinessEurope internal memo has 4 recommendations for advocacy and communication stategy. The members are asked to adhere to the prescribed approach. They should be rather positive as long as it remains as a political statement with no implications on the range of 2030 EU legislation, and oppose the new increase of ambition. The should also challenge the process, such as the need for more transparency on the calculations, and “minimise” the issue arguing that the formation of a “de facto” extra ambition is not what matters most [BusinessEurope’s discussion note for energy and climate WG meeting om 19/09/2018; avalaible on EURACTIV].
Science, politics and policy-making, it has always been a difficult balance. In fact, the European lobby group BusinessEurope wants to undermine the climate targets. A very unwise decision, now that it has been very clearly shown that the world is closer to exceeding the budget for the long-term target of the Paris Climate Agreement than previously thought [Gasser et al. 2018].
Lobbyists often represent powerful interests. Yet, an ethical approach to lobbying must ensure that someone stands up for the common good. Conceptually, ethics is far from being a thoughtless and servile adoration of rules, that are often set after aggressive lobbying. The fundamental question of ethics is not “What should I do? But what kind of person should I be?”. For the industry, this question becomes: “What image do we like for ourselves and for our company?”.
Dear reader, I sincerely hope that my message will not be trashed.
Gasser et al. [2018]. Path-dependent reductions in CO2 emission budgets caused by permafrost carbon release, Nature Geoscience 1
Mora et al. [2017]. Twenty-Seven Ways a Heat Wave Can Kill You: Deadly Heat in the Era of Climate Change, Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes 10, 11, 1 – 3
A recent article by Desforges et al. [2017] included some pretty surprising information: “In the present study, complex contaminant cocktails derived from the blubber of polar bears (PB; Ursus maritimus) and killer whales (KW; Orcinus orca) were used for in vitro concentration−response experiments with PB, cetacean and seal spp. immune cells to evaluate the effect of realistic contaminant mixtures on various immune functions”.
This is most unexpected. Investigations carried out on polar bear and killer whale blubber are exceptional, if only because these animals are so difficult to approach. Polar bears are the world’s largest land predators. They top the food chain in the Arctic. Killer whales prey on just about any animal they find in the sea, in the air above the water or along the coast. Their name is most appropriate since they are able to take down large marine animals.
Polar bears and killer whales are difficult to approach [source: PIXABAY – https://pixabay.com/]
Since the 1970s, the implications for environmental and human health of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) have been very much at the centre of public and scientific concern. POPs constitute a suite of different chemicals including chlorinated hydrocarbons (e.g. the pesticides, chlordanes, mirex and hexachlorocyclohexanes), industrial chemicals (e.g. polychlorinated and polybrominated biphenyls, as well as the dioxins and furans which are by-products of biphenyl production), brominated hydrocarbons (e.g. the brominated flame retardants), fluorinated compounds (e.g. perfluorooctanesulfonic acid) as well as non-halogenated, emerging chemical contaminants (e.g. phthalates and bisphenols). Because of their pronounced resistance to degradation and lipophilicity they accumulate in adipose tissue[1] and concentrate along food webs, with highest levels being found in top predators such as the polar bears and killer whales.
POPs bio-accumulate and bio-magnify in ecosystems (highest levels are found in top predators) and their negative effects increase accordingly. We humans are exposed to these same chemicals in a variety of ways, mainly through the food we eat, but also through the air we breathe outdoors, indoors and at our places of work. Many products used in our daily lives contain POPs, which were added to improve the products’ characteristics; this is, e.g., the case with flame retardants or surfactants. As a result, POPs can be found virtually everywhere on our planet in measurable concentrations. Human exposure can lead, among other effects, to increased cancer risk, reproductive disorders, alteration of the immune system, neuro-behavioural impairment, endocrine disruption, geno-toxicity and increased birth defects [WHO – http://www.who.int/ ]. So, checking for the effects of highly complex contaminant cocktails is an absolute necessity. The whole world is exposed to them, but no one really knows how dangerous they are. Assessing their risks is a major challenge for the 21st century.
Today, toxicity studies mostly use single chemical exposures. This inadequately represents the real world situation of complex mixtures of the widely known and unknown, the natural and anthropogenic chemicals. Single compound exposure and effect studies are important to assess the risk of individual, legacy and emerging contaminants. However, every mixture contaminant may individually increase (or decrease) the adverse health effects of certain other compounds. But the question of how the contaminants interact remains largely unanswered and even largely unexplored. This question is a challenging one and is becoming increasingly alarming in a world that is awash with chemicals [Carpenter et al. 2002].
The chemical industry has substantially increased its productivity over time and has distinguished itself by holding on to the resulting profitability gains, unlike many other industries. Professor Hideaki Chihara (1927 – 2013), an esteemed Japanese chemist and former president of the Japan Association for International Chemical Information, spoke as follows to his audience when Chemical Abstracts Service announced that on September 7, 2009 it had recorded the 50 millionth substance “… Achieving a milestone of 50 million small molecules registered, which I congratulate CAS for, has given us two major insights; one is that a novel substance is either isolated or synthesized every 2.6 seconds on the average during the past 12 months, day and night, seven days a week in the world, showing an almost unbelievable rate of progress in science…”.
There is little doubt that we all live in a chemical soup and in a soup of exposures. The American toxicologist Linda Birnbaum already put forward this message in 2012 [Borrell 2012].
Why then focus on the effects of the pure chemical? To study the exposure to one single chemical agent is to study a far too simplistic exposure situation. Many scientists have convincingly evidenced that the effects of mixtures differ from the sums of their individual effects [Pape-Lindstrom & Lydy 1997; Kortenkamp 2009;Laetz et al. 2009; Delfosse et al. 2015; Krepker et al. 2017]. It is stated that exposure to mixtures will result in either greater than additive responses (synergism or interactive joint toxicity) or less than additive responses (antagonism). The “contaminants’cocktail” concept remains a broadly misunderstood and insufficiently researched concept with a strong social resonance. Now is the time to invest in studies on the cocktail effects of pollutants.
Originally, a great deal of attention was paid to pesticides, the chemical substances that are used to kill or repel biological organisms [de March 1987]. This diverse group includes insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, nematicides, acaricides, rodenticides, avicides, wood preservatives, and antifoulants. Mixtures of pesticides are commonly applied in the human food production, both offshore (fish and crustacean farms) and onshore (agriculture and livestock production). Assessing the cumulative toxicity of pesticides in mixtures is therefore an enduring challenge, all the more because several combinations of pesticides were lethal at concentrations that were sublethal in single-chemical trials [Laetz et al. 2009].
Kortenkamp [2007] argues “… that accumulated evidence seriously undermines continuation with the customary chemical-by-chemical approach for risk assessment of endocrine disruptors (EDs)…”. Instead, he recommends to seriously consider group-wise regulation of classes of EDs. Future research should focus on investigating the effects of combinations of EDs from different categories, with considerable emphasis on elucidating mechanisms. This strategy will generate better-defined criteria for grouping EDs for regulatory purposes. Moreover, Gore et al. [2015] once more stressed the need not to deal lightly with EDs. Their statement is based on a comprehensive review of the literature on seven topics for which there is strong mechanistic, experimental, animal, and epidemiological evidence for endocrine disruption, namely: obesity and diabetes, female reproduction, male reproduction, hormone-sensitive cancers in females, prostate cancer, thyroid, and neurodevelopment and neuroendocrine systems. It also includes thorough coverage of studies of developmental exposures to EDs, especially in the foetus and infant, because these are critical life stages during which perturbations of hormones can increase the probability of a disease or dysfunction later in life. The authors conclude that publications over the past 5 years (prior to 2015) have led to a more complete understanding of the endocrine principles by which EDs operate, including non-monotonic dose-responses, low-dose effects, and developmental vulnerability.
Delfosse et al. [2015] have demonstrated that a pharmaceutical oestrogen and a persistent organochlorine pesticide, both exhibiting low efficacy when studied separately, cooperatively bind to the pregnane X receptor[2], leading to synergistic activation. Biophysical analysis shows that each ligand enhances the binding affinity of the other, so the binary mixture induces a substantial biological response at doses at which each chemical is individually inactive. High-resolution crystal structures reveal the structural basis for the observed cooperativity: it is suggested that the formation of supramolecular ligands within the ligand-binding pocket of nuclear receptors contributes to the synergistic toxic effect of chemical mixtures.
A few examples by way of illustration. Pesticides represent an increasingly ubiquitous form of environmental contamination. Moreover, there is more epidemiological evidence to link pesticides with obesity, diabetes, insulin resistance and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease [Lukowicz et al. 2018, and references herein]. Consumers are exposed to mixtures of pesticides at low doses through their food consumption. The consequences however of such a chronic exposure on metabolic homeostasis are not well described, and therefore not well known [EFSA 2015]. Lukowicz et al. [2018] used a pesticide cocktail that may be commonly found in apples on the European market to evaluate the metabolic consequences of chronic dietary exposure to a pesticide mixture at nontoxic doses relevant to consumer risk assessment. A pesticide cocktail was therefore incorporated in a standard chow at doses exposing laboratory mice to the tolerable daily intake of each individual pesticide. The results of the study have demonstrated metabolic disturbances in vivo that differ as a function of sex. Males exposed to the pesticides gained weight and became diabetic, whereas females were protected from these effects but displayed other disturbances, e.g. oxidized glutathione liver ratio and perturbations of gut microbiota-related urinary metabolites. These observations give weight to the idea of a plausible link between pesticides and health, and support recent epidemiological findings that demonstrate an inverse relationship between the high consumption of organically farmed products and the probability of developing metabolic syndrome.
The Lukowicz et al. [2018] study made use of laboratory animals. There is however a tendency to reduce animal models for toxicity testing. This gave rise to in vitro exposure experiments for contaminant risk assessments. In vitro experiments uniquely allow for the evaluation of species specific effects; they allow for rapid detection of direct contaminant effects on the immune system. Desforges et al. [2017] made use of in vitro investigations with the real world situation of complex mixtures of both the well-known as well as unknown contaminants, reflecting the burden accumulated over a lifetime. The complex mixtures showed lower effect levels relative to single compounds. While more work is needed to better define and extrapolate exposure metrics for in vitro studies, the results using blubber-derived contaminant cocktails add realism and complexity to in vitro exposure experiments and confirm the immunotoxic risk faced by marine mammals when exposed to environmental contaminants.
Studying polar bear and killer whale blubber is not as crazy as you may think. It is quite simply the realistic thing to do. And do you want to know why? Polar bears, killer whales and humans are neighbours on the higher trophic levels. Also, there are plenty of new, unstudied contaminants lurking around every corner. We have now largely exceeded the number of 50 million chemical substances.
[1] Adipose tissue is a connective tissue in which fat is stored and which has the cells distended by droplets of fat [Merriam Webster].
[2] Pregnane X receptor (PXR, NR1I2) is a ligand-activated nuclear receptor (NR) superfamily member expressed at high levels within the enterohepatic system of mammals [Sun et al. 2015].
Borrell [2012]. Chemical “soup” clouds connection between toxins and poor health, Nature
Carpenter et al. [2002]. Understanding the Human Health Effects of Chemical Mixtures, Environmental Health Perspectives 110 (Suppl 1), 25 – 42
Delfosse et al. [2015]. Synergistic activation of human pregnane X receptor by binary cocktails of pharmaceutical and environmental compounds, Nature Communications 6, 8089.
de March [1987]. Simple similar action and independent joint action—Two similar models for the joint effects of toxicants applied as mixtures, Aquatic Toxicology 9, 291 – 304
Desforges et al. [2017]. Effects of Polar Bear and Killer Whale Derived Contaminant Cocktails on Marine Mammal Immunity, Environmental Science & Technology 51, 19, 11431 – 11439
EFSA [2015]. The 2013 European Union report on pesticide residues in food, EFSA Journal 13, 3, pp. 169
Gore et al. [2015]. EDC-2: The Endocrine Society’s Second Scientific Statement on Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals, Endocrine reviews 36, 6, E1 – E150
Jager et al. [2010]. A biology-based approach for mixture toxicity of multiple endpoints over the life cycle, Ecotoxicology 19, 351 – 361
Kortenkamp [2007]. Ten years of mixing cocktails – a review of combination effects of endocrine disrupting chemicals, Environmental Health Perspectives 115 (Suppl 1), 98 – 105
Krepker et al. [2017]. Active food packaging films with synergistic antimicrobial activity, Food Control 76, 117 – 126
Laetz et al. [2009]. The Synergistic Toxicity of Pesticide Mixtures: Implications for Risk Assessment and the Conservation of Endangered Pacific Salmon, Environmental Health Perspectives 117, 348 – 353
Lukowicz et al. [2018]. Metabolic Effects of a Chronic Dietary Exposure to a Low-Dose Pesticide Cocktail in Mice: Sexual Dimorphism and Role of the Constitutive Androstane Receptor, Environmental Health Perspectives 126, 6, pp. 18
Pape-Lindstrom & Lydy [1997]. Synergistic toxicity of atrazine and organophosphate insecticides contravenes the response addition mixture model, Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 16, 11, 2415 – 2420
Sun et al. [2015]. Pregnane X Receptor Modulates the Inflammatory Response in Primary Cultures of Hepatocytes, Drug Metabolism and Disposition 43, 335 – 343
Common plastic bottles roughly take 500 – 1000 years to degrade. Obviously, there is a complete mismatch between how long they are used for and how long the environment takes to decompose them. Transparent plastic bottles made from polyethylene terephthalate (PET) are recycled into new bottles, plastic containers for fruits and vegetables, textile fibres, carpets and stuffing for mattresses, jackets and sleeping bags [https://www.fostplus.be/en]1. However, tons of empty bottles are dumped every year all over the country and many of them ultimately end up in the ocean where their disappearance is much slower than the supply of new ones. The giant accumulation of plastic called the Great Pacific Garbage Patch contains at least 79000 tons of discarded plastic, covering an area of[Symbol]1.6 million square km [https://abcnews.go.com/]. Of course, there is more than water bottles in the garbage patch, but they have much to account for. And when the fossil fuel and energy required to produce plastic bottles are factored in, it becomes clear that a sustainable solution is needed to stop, or at least significantly reduce, the damage to our environment. I am simply referring to what is floating around in the ocean without even speaking about tidying up the mess. Has a sustainable and satisfactory solution already been found? What about edible packaging?
“… I’ve slurped water. I’ve guzzled it. I’ve sipped it. But I’ve never eaten it. Thatchanged when I tried my first Ooho. Ooho – or edible water – is thebrainchild of Pierre Paslier and Rodrigo Garcia Gonzalez, who wanted tocreate an alternative to plastic bottles, the ones many of us buy everydayand toss away. Their ingenious solution is an edible, seaweed-basedmembrane that holds water…”
This was the introduction of a striking article published by Julia Platt Leonard on April 17, 2017. Ooho is a blob-like, edible water capsule that stores a big sip of water within a biodegradable, tasteless membrane chiefly made from calcium chloride and a seaweed derivative called sodium alginate [http://www.oohowater.com/]. Alginate is a biomaterial that has numerous applications in biomedical science and engineering because of favourable highly desirable properties including biocompatibility and ease of gelation. To date, alginate hydrogels are particularly attractive in wound healing, drug delivery, and tissue engineering applications [Lee & Mooney 2012].
The water inside the membrane quenches the thirst; the membrane itself can either be swallowed or spat out. It will hardly cause any unwanted effects: it is both easily digestible and biodegradable. The inventors believe that Ooho can be the global solution to water and other “on-the-go” drinks. Much less energy (and much less CO2 emission) is required to produce Ooho compared with PET bottles. That makes it a far more sustainable alternative to synthetic plastic bottles. Oohos are also much cheaper to manufacture compared to plastic bottles. Also, their green credentials are likely to resonate with sustainability-conscious audiences.
Paslier and Gonzalez found inspiration in a very unusual place. Their exploration began by looking at fake caviar. Oh, yes, caviar is supposed to be a delicacy of salt-cured roe from wild sturgeons. Some people will do anything for a quick profit however including producing and selling fake caviar. Fraudsters replace the real delicacy with small fish balls basically made of alginate, which is an extract from brown seaweed. Simply google “fake caviar” and you will find how to make small caviar-like balls. This of course is not meant as an invitation to set up a fake seafood business!
Drinks in edible, easily digestible membranes:itsounds futuristic, but it is not. Edible packagings and coatings are time-honoured practices. As early as the twelfth century, citrus fruits from Southern China were preserved for the Emperor’s table by placing them in boxes, pouring molten wax over them, and sending them by caravan to the North [Hardenburg 1967, Pavlath & Orts 2009] . While their quality would not have been acceptable to our modern society, the method was quite effective for its time and was used for centuries for lack of more efficient solutions.
Another example with a long history also has its roots in Asia: yuba, a very famous delicacy in some places. Soybeans are somehow connected to most Japanese delicacies, including the versatile and nutritious tofu skin, known as yuba in Japan. Yuba is the by-product of boiled soy milk. Just like the natural process we all have observed when heating cow’s milk, a film (yuba) forms on the surface of boiling soy milk. While most people will discard the “icky” skins from cow’s milk, the Japanese keep the yuba. They love it mainly because of its nutritional value: it contains ~55 % protein and ~25 % vegetable oil on a dry weight basis, and it is low in cholesterol [Shurtleff & Aoyagi 2012]. But yuba has also a delicate form and an easily adaptable natural flavor. Japanese people eat it from breakfast to dessert. Yuba films have been traditionally utilized for wrapping meats and/or vegetables. The good oxygen barrier capacity of soy protein isolate (SPI) films can be utilized in the manufacture of multilayer packaging, with the protein films functioning as the oxygen barrier part. SPI coatings on pre-cooked meat products offer good protection against lipid oxidation as well as moisture loss. Moreover, incorporation of additives such as antioxidants, flavouring agents, etc. can improve the overall quality of the packed food products [Buffo & Han 2005]. Also, SPI films may find applications such as micro-encapsulating agents of flavours and pharmaceuticals or in coatings of fruits, vegetables and cheese [Petersen et al. 1999]. And SPI coatings can be used on certain food products such as meat pies and cakes, which require films that are highly permeable to water vapour [Gennadios et al. 1993].
These are but a few examples of the wide range of applications. Often, we are so familiar with edible films and coatings that we do no longer think about them. Did you notice that the fruits in the bowl were treated? Did you think about the coating when you bit into the apple you were eating?
Some 25 years ago, the use of edible films and coatings as carriers of active substances was already suggested as a promising application of food packaging [Cuq et al. 1995]. They are now commonly used.
Edible packaging is not completely without its critics. Some people feel that the edible nature of the packaging defeats its main objective, which is to protect the food from dirt, chemical contaminants and germs and to improve its shelf life. And there is a psychological barrier that people need to overcome when ingesting soluble polymers (or in other words “soluble plastic”), even when they are biopolymers and were given a special flavour.
The Ooho company wants to gain its place on the market as an alternative for single-serve water bottles, generally bought in food and drink outlets. Moreover, large-scale outdoor events such as festivals, major sporting events, etc. might also be an access route to the market. But then, is water really the number one drink at the big festivals?
There are however quite significant challenges that the company must overcome before it can diffuse into the mass market. While Ooho capsules are suitable in single-serve settings, their practicality outside this particular area appears to be somewhat questionable. Unlike bottles, Oohos have a short shelf life of a few days, carry a potential choking hazard and only offer single-gulp consumption. Moreover, the fragility of the product’s membrane means they are less suitable for long-distance transportation and use throughout the day, or throughout a few days (at most).
Hygiene is another problem that must be addressed since, without packaging, the membrane is exposed to chemical and microbiological contamination which can be harmful when ingested. Food safety regulators will be concerned about the number of hands and surfaces food and beverages wrapped in edible packaging are likely to come in contact with on their way to a shop shelf and ultimately to the consumers. The company may need to provide Oohos with some protective packaging, which of course would go against their packaging-free mission. To decide that the edible packaging must be protected by additional packaging might become self-defeating.
Ooho is an innovative product idea and will serve as an excellent, sustainable alternative to packaged water products in single-serve, on-the-go settings, especially at mass events. Outside this channel, however, the functionality of the product becomes somewhat restricted. In all likelihood, further innovation will be required if Ooho is to replace plastic water bottles on all consumption occasions.
Is edible packaging a crazy idea or a promising development? Generally speaking, the production of edible films is still mainly at the laboratory scale. It is also considered to be expensive compared with synthetic plastic films. Research on cost reduction and production on larger scales are necessary to promote the feasibility of commercialized edible packagings. The feasibility of commercialized systems depends on the complexity of the production process, size of investment for film production or coating equipment, potential conflicts with conventional food packaging systems, and manufacturer resistance to the use of new materials [Han & Gennadios 2005].
Additionally, food manufacturer demand is for long shelf life for products in interstate as well as international commerce. Edible packaging materials are themselves inherently susceptible to biodegradation, and their protective functions are therefore stable for shorter durations than is the case for conventional packagings. The stability and safety of edible packagings under the intended storage and use conditions therefore require further investigation.
We are well on the way to developing a new packaging concept, but more progress is needed. Scientists, industrial partners and public authorities must join forces.
Pavlath & Orts [2009]. Edible Films and Coatings: Why, What, and How?, in Embuscado & Huber (eds.), Edible Films and Coatings for Food Applications, Springer, 1 – 23
Petersen et al. [1999]. Potential of biobased materials for food packaging, Trends in Food Science & Technology 10, 2, 52 – 68
Shurtleff & Aoyagi [2012]. History of Yuba – The film that forms atop heated soymilk, Soyinfo Center, pp.418
Plastic is everywhere. It is now high time to ban it from our lives. This was the message that was announced in the media.
The action “Mei Plasticvrij (a plastic-free month of May)” wants to make the Flemish people aware of the problem. Its aim is to significantly reduce the production and use of plastic. A call to participate in the action appeared in all Flemish newspapers and magazines, and many have already joined the movement.
Granted, there is a problem — a huge and global problem even! Plastics as well as their by-products and derivatives are littering our arable land, cities, motorways, oceans, estuaries and rivers. The ubiquitous presence of plastics in our environment somehow contributes towards making the problem unnoticed, unrecognized, and forgotten. And this is exactly why we all need to start thinking about it with more deliberate attention [Kontrick 2018]. A slogan-like action such as Mei Plasticvrij is merely the first step in the right direction. Long-term structural solutions require much more efforts.
The increasing production and disposal of plastic have resulted in the omnipresence of macro- as well as microplastics (MiP)[1] — a situation that causes serious concern among the global population. Most plastics are barely degradable and are easily ingested by a wide range of organisms. They have been found in all forms of marine life from zooplankton to whales. The extent of the pollution and its resulting impact on the environment still remain largely unknown. What we do know, however, is that persistent plastics, with an estimated lifetime for degradation of hundreds of years in marine conditions, can break up into micro- and nanoplastics over shorter timescales, thus facilitating their uptake by marine biota. A crisis of hitherto unimagined proportions is about to occur! First, and most obviously, the physical impact of MiP creates devastating injuries to many forms of marine life. Plastic bezoars[2] in gills and intestines interfere with feeding habits and lead to the unnatural death of many animals. Second, plasticizers in MiP have been linked to abnormal growth and reproductive problems resulting from endocrine disruption in multiple animal models [Auta et al. 2017]. Third, studies have shown how organic contaminants leach into organisms that ingest MiP. Fourth, a study this year described how MiP deliver dangerous metals like lead and cadmium to coastal ecosystems [Munier & Bendell 2018].
There is no room for doubt: plastics pose risks to marine ecosystems, biodiversity and food availability [Gallo et al. 2018]. Recently, scientists in Norway found more than 30 plastic bags and other plastic waste inside the stomach of a whale stranded off the coast. But the marine ecosystems are not the only ones to be affected. Microplastics are everywhere: on land, but also in the air we breathe, in the water we drink and in all the food we eat. It is very disturbing to learn that the food we eat contains microplastics from distant sources, but especially from the immediate environment and house dust [Catarino et al. 2018]. We are surrounded by invisible pieces of waste and exposed to all kinds of unpleasant consequences. Even the arable land is polluted. Research results published by Awet et al. [2018] showed a pronounced decrease in microbial biomass in treatments of 100 and 1000 ng polystyrene nanoparticles per g dry soil mass throughout the incubation period. Moreover, basal respiration and metabolic quotient increased with increasing polystyrene nanoparticles application rate throughout the incubation period possibly due to increased cell death that caused substrate-induced respiration (cryptic growth). The authors in this way demonstrated the antimicrobial activity of polystyrene nanoparticles in soil.
Although we still need additional scientific research to fill the knowledge gaps about the health impact of plastic litter in both the marine and freshwater ecosystems [Wagner et al. 2014], there is sufficient scientific evidence already to support actions by the scientific, industrial, polical and civil society communities to curb the endless flow of plastic waste into aquatic ecosystems. Continued increases in plastic production and consumption, combined with wasteful uses, inefficient waste collection and insufficient waste management facilities, especially in developing countries, mean that to achieve even current objectives for reducing marine litter represents a huge challenge, and one unlikely to be met without fundamentally rethinking the ways in which we consume plastics.
A plastic-free month of May is therefore a commendable initiative to increase population awareness. The current trend should not be allowed to continue. Some people however may interpret “plastic- free” as meaning “completely without plastic and possibly no more plastic in the future”. This to me seems a totally unrealistic objective.
Since the dawn of the synthetic materials era, advances have been unparallelled in the history of materials. Chemists have discovered new catalysts and developed new synthesis routes to join small molecules into long polymer macromolecules with the appropriate properties for particular uses. Physicists and engineers have designed new processing methods and new technologies to enhance performances. Naturally, consumers are becoming increasingly more demanding. And, quite rightly, we expect products that will further enhance the quality of our lives and we want materials and technologies that are increasingly energy efficient, sustainable and capable of reducing global pollution. Our dream is an open and accessible world with a healthy living environment for all. It is also our challenge for the future.
The World Economic Forum (https://www.weforum.org/) published “5 synthetic materials that will shape the future”, a highly fascinating and relevant paper on unexpected innovations and developments. Ignoring these opportunities would be very foolish. The World Economic Forum emphasized innovations of unmistakable importance.
Bioplastics are becoming steadily more important [Arikan & Oszoy 2017]. As we are all too often reminded, “common” plastics do not degrade and are a very visible source of environmental pollution. To complicate things further, the raw materials of these polymers, which we call the monomers, are historically derived from crude oil, which is not renewable. But things are changing! Thanks to research and development using enzymes and catalysts, it is becoming increasingly possible to convert renewable resources into the major building blocks needed for manufacturing plastics and synthetic rubbers. And when the reaction products are also biodegradable[3], they no longer constitute a huge problem for the environment. Currently, the global bioplastics market is thought to be growing at a rate of 20% to 25% per year. Their major advantages are a lower carbon footprint, independence, energy efficiency, and better eco-safety.
Plastic composites are reinforced by different types of fibre to make them stronger or more elastic. More recent high-performance developments within this field are nanocomposites, whereby plastics are reinforced using tiny particles of substances such as graphene[4]. These have any number of potential uses [Chen et al. 2018], ranging from lightweight sensors on wind turbine blades to more powerful batteries to internal body scaffolds that speed up the healing process of broken bones.
No matter how carefully we select materials for engineering applications based on their ability to withstand mechanical stresses and environmental conditions, at a given time they will inevitably fail. Ageing, degradation and loss of mechanical integrity due to impact or fatigue are all contributing factors. Inspired by biological systems, new materials are now developed which are able to heal in response to what would be traditionally considered irreversible damage. Polymers are not the only materials with the potential for self-healing, but they seem to be very good at it [Pang et al. 2018]. A series of novel techniques dedicated to polymerized products with features such as properties regulation, self-healing, reprocessing, solid state recycling, and controllable degradation are now being developed, heralding the opportunity of upgrading traditional polymer engineering. Although the exploration of this emerging topic is still in its infancy, the advances so far are encouraging and clearly directed to large scale applications.
Most polymers are insulators and therefore do not conduct electricity. However, a substantial upsurge in this field of polymer research emerged in 2000 after the award of a Nobel Prize to Alan MacDiarmid, Alan Heeger and Hideki Shirakawa for their contribution in discovering that a polymer named polyacetylene became conductive when impurities were introduced through a process known as doping. Not only does the same process make other similar polymers conductive, but some can even be converted into light-emitting diodes (LEDs). This is an area where polymers still face considerable challenge since they are a class of exciting materials combining the advantages of both metals and plastics [Ouyang 2018].
Gels and synthetic rubbers can easily adjust their shape in response to external stimuli, which means they are able to respond to changes in their surroundings. The external stimulus would usually be a change in temperature or acidity/alkalinity transition; but it could equally be light, ultrasound or chemical agents. This turns out to be incredibly useful in designing smart materials for sensors, drug delivery devices and many other applications. Other possibilities for smart polymers include products like window coatings that can wash the windows when they are dirty, and medical stitches that disappear when an injury has healed.
In today’s society there is need for bioplastics, nanocomposites, self-healing polymers, plastic electronics as well as smart polymers. Let us be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater!
From this perspective plastic-free is pure nonsense. I would have preferred “litter-free” or “waste-free”. I would very much appreciate clean cities, clean motorways. And, yes, I would love a natural, plastic-free, and productive ocean.
Hopefully, consumers will no longer throw their rubbish on the streets. Hopefully, the industry will increasingly consider waste as a raw material. And, hopefully, decision makers will seriously and financially encourage the research we still need to warrant necessary innovations.
I know, being hopeful can sometimes be disheartening!
Arikan & Oszoy [2015]. A Review: Investigation of Bioplastics, Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture 9, 188 – 192
Auta et al. 2017]. Distribution and importance ofmicroplastics in themarine environment: A review of the sources, fate, effects, and potential solutions, Environment International 102, 165 – 176
Awet et al. [2018]. Effects of polystyrene nanoparticles on the microbiota and functional diversity of enzymes in soil, Environmental Sciences Europe 30, 11, pp. 10
Catarino et al. [2018], Low levels of microplastics (MP) in wild mussels indicate that MP ingestion by humans is minimal compared to exposure via household fibres fallout during a meal, Environmental Pollution 237, 675 – 684
Chen et al. [2018]. A critical review on the development and performance of polymer/graphene nanocomposites, Science and Engineering of Composite Materials, published online
Gallo et al. [2018]. Marine litter plastics and microplastics and their toxic chemicals components: the need for urgent preventive measures, Environmental Sciences Europe 30, 13, pp. 14
Munier & Bendell [2018]. Macro and micro plastics sorb and desorb metals and act as a point source of trace metals to coastal ecosystems, PLoS ONE 13, 2, e0191759. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191759
Pang et al. [2018]. Polymer engineering based on reversible covalent chemistry: A promising innovative pathway towards new materials and new functionalities, Progress in Polymer Science 80, 39 – 93
Wagner et al. [2014]. Microplastics in freshwater ecosystems: what we know and what we need to know, Environmental Sciences Europe 26, 12, pp. 9
[1] Microplastics are small plastic pieces less than five millimeters long that can be harmful to organisms. Microplastics come from a variety of sources, including larger plastic debris that degrades into smaller pieces. In addition, microbeads, a type of microplastic, are very tiny pieces of manufactured polyethylene plastic that are added as exfoliants to health and beauty products, such as some cleansers and toothpastes.
[2] Bezoars are tightly packed collections of ingested material that can become stuck in the stomach or intestines.
[3] Whether a plastic is biomass- or petroleum-based is a different question than whether it will biodegrade (a process by which microbes break down material if conditions are suitable). Technically, all materials are biodegradable, but for practical purposes, only those that degrade within a relatively short period of time are considered biodegradable.
[4] The simplest way to describe graphene is that it is a single, thin layer of graphite — the soft, flaky material used in pencil lead. Graphite is an allotrope of the element carbon, meaning it possesses the same atoms, but they are arranged differently, which gives different properties to the material.
A Few weeks ago, the Plastic Attack action received tremendous media coverage. Newspaper articles and television news bulletins showed supermarket customers tearing off the packagings of the consumables they had bought and dumping them in bins at the exit. Is the use of packaging redundant? Will it soon be banned?
Admittedly, we face a problem – a very old problem. It emerged years ago. The militant and engaged artist, Clay Apenouvon, became fascinated by plastic, and in 2010 he created his concept Plastic Attack. This concept was meant to raise awareness of the worldwide, environmental danger and harm caused by plastic. In his work, Apenouvon sought to express the concept of plastic “fatal beauty” [http://africanah.org/clay-apenouvon-togo/].
Fatal beauty: a striking metaphor!
Packaging is the encasement of products in packages – Packaging includes protective wrappings and other external coverings that can provide protection, information, security and marketing benefits. Finding another material or object that achieves excellence in all four aspects will not be easy.
The basic benefit of packaging is to protect the packed goods (food as well as non-food) prior to their sale. It prevents damage during transport and storage. Food packaging also significantly contributes to the hygienic transportation and storage of various foods and drinks. Packaging reduces exposure to both chemical and microbiological contaminants, which can cause food poisoning or foodborne diseases[1]. Some packagings or packaging systems also actively prolong the shelf life of various foods and drinks, e.g. modified atmosphere packaging, active packaging, etc.
Packagings also provide information regarding contents, usually the factual, legally mandatory or promotional information. Packagings are also in the front line when it comes to marketing. They provide a marketing opportunity by attracting customers to the product and by demonstrating the product’s attributes. Through design and appropriate communication, packages can differentiate a product from similar products produced by competitors and help sell them. Well designed, impressive packagings can be of great help in high profile promotion of packed goods.
Packages are sometimes designed for containment: products (or objects) that contain multiple items use appropriate packagings to keep everything together before the items are displayed in the shop. Product containment can also allow a product to be sold in larger quantities. Also, product security depends on the packaging. Correct packaging procedures make items tamper-resistant; they can help reduce theft, and can help prevent harm from dangerous products.
Packagings provide protection, information, security and marketing benefits. Contemporary life has become unthinkable without packaging. Shouting from the rooftops that packaging must be banned may be short-sighted, but it is nevertheless important to recognize that we face a complex and global problem.
The message is: Stop littering! – Consumer packaging accounts for very large quantities of waste. Disposing of (food) packaging introduces waste into the ecosystem, which produces a great many negative effects.
Litter is small waste that is left outside, either consciously or unconsciously, in places where it does not belong. Cigarette butts, chewing gum, food waste, packagings, cans, bottles, drinking cups, tickets, umbrellas, handkerchiefs, etc. are all examples of litter. Even though the problem has been known for over a century (Figure 1), the warnings have not always been taken seriously. Did you know it takes some 75 – 80 years to degrade a discarded empty bag of crisps? And did you know that the complete breakdown of a PET bottle takes ~500 years?
Figure 1. After you have enjoyed the forest, do not leave fruit peels and boxes for the owner [ANWB, The Netherlands 1903]
Littering does not only cause irritation; cleaning up the mess also costs a great deal of money. The litter clean-up in Flanders costs over 60 million euros per year, which corresponds to almost 10 euros per inhabitant [https://www.vlaanderen.be/nl/natuur-en-milieu/afval/zwerfvuil-en-sluikstort]. And a lot of work remains to be done. Despite government efforts, there are still masses of waste on our streets and motorways. Generating awareness is the most important step in the fight against littering. All of us can play a role in protecting the environment by changing our behaviour as consumers, says Jan Verheyen, spokesman OVAM (Openbare Vlaamse Afvalstoffenmaatschappij, Public Waste Agency of Flanders).
The litter build-up is not so much a regional problem as it is a global problem. We have all seen the pictures of the Great Pacific garbage patch (GPGP) or Pacific trash vortex, the gyre of marine debris particles in the central North Pacific Ocean that was discovered as long as 30 years ago. The oceanic garbage build-up is a highly complex and very worrying unsolved problem. Lebreton et al. [2018] confirm that ocean plastic pollution within the GPGP is increasing exponentially and pollution build-up occurs at a faster rate than in surrounding waters.
Moreover, garbage is both visible and invisible. It consists predominantly of small, suspended, often microscopic particles in the upper water column. Sometimes larger pieces of plastic float around in the water, and fish, sea birds, and mammals mistake them for food. When the animals eat the plastic, their bodies cannot digest it providing the animal with a sensation of satiety. The animal then stops eating and soon dies of starvation. The fatal beauty of non-degradable plastic!
And, what we cannot see is even worse. Micro- and nanoplastics are ubiquitous, in marine as in freshwater ecosystems [Horton et al. 2017], with microplastics found in places as far-flung as a Mongolian mountain lake and in deep sea sediments. The major concern is that they are ingested by a number of aquatic biota, especially the filter feeders like molluscs, mussels, oysters, from where they enter the food chain, all of which could have physical and toxicological effects on aquatic organisms and on the final consumers, i.e. the oyster and mussel lovers. Our much appreciated seafood contaminated by microplastics! That in itself is a serious problem; but there is more, much more than that. Microplastics are everywhere: on land, but also in the air we breathe, in the water we drink and in all the food we eat. It is very disturbing to learn that the food we eat contains microplastics from distant sources as well as from the immediate environment and house dust [Catarino et al. 2018]. We are surrounded by invisible pieces of waste, and exposed to all kinds of unpleasant consequences.
Is it too late? – Every year, an estimated 8 million tons of plastic end up in the ocean, and the figure should rise to ~60 tons per minute (double) by 2050 if today’s plastic use and lack of adequate waste management continue. The problem of ocean plastic is huge. Yet, despite everything, there is no reason to lose heart. I summarize the 8 essential steps that are required for efficient action. For more information I suggest you visit the World Economic Forum website [Jensen 2018]:
We use too many single-use plastic items such as straws, plastic bags, cups, plates and cutlery, and must put an end to this practice.
Leading fossil fuel based plastic manufacturers are planning to increase their production over the coming years. Instead, alternatives to non-degradable plastics must be developed. It is also recommended to target the industries responsible for major plastic wastes with specific industry agreements and producer liability arrangements.
Since fossil fuel based plastic is still cheaper to synthesize and buy than renewable plastic, governments should investigate the implemention of a tax on polluting plastic.
The consumption of plastic is increasing faster than the capacity to handle its waste. An international aid programme should therefore be established to develop waste management and recycling infrastructures.
An international agreement with firm targets and time frames for implementation should be established, aiming at increased market responsibility to prevent new propagation and the strengthening of waste management.
Efforts to map and monitor, and research on adverse effects for health and environmental quality must be strengthened.
Since a majority of the plastic in the ocean is thought to come from land-based activities and industry, everyone can and should contribute to the solution.
To solve the plastic problem, we must ensure that action and clean-up operations are undertaken in areas where the problem is greatest. Much of the work, however, is hampered due to lack of financial resources. The establishment of a global ocean fund, with waste management and clean-up of marine areas high on the agenda, will be one step closer towards a plastic-free future with no pollution of the world’s oceans.
Make a feedstock out of waste – Looking beyond the current take-make-dispose extractive industrial model, circular economy aims to redefine growth, focusing on positive society-wide benefits. It entails gradually decoupling economic activity from the consumption of finite resources such as fossil fuel, and designing waste out of the system [Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2017].
Europe is well placed to take a leading role in the transition to the plastics of the future. Its strategy [EC 2018] determines the foundations of a renewed plastics economy, where the design and production of plastics and plastic products fully respect reuse, repair and recycling needs, and where more sustainable materials are developed and promoted. This will deliver greater added value and prosperity in Europe and boost innovation as long as there is fair (governmental) financing; it will curb plastic pollution and its adverse impact on our environment and well-being. Yet, all stakeholders including the private sector, together with national and regional authorities, cities and citizens, will need to mobilise, since reuse and recycling of end-of-life plastics is still very low; much lower than for other materials such as paper, glass or metals. Still ~95 % of the value of plastic packaging materials, i.e. between 70 and 105 billion euros annually, is lost after a very short first-use cycle.
Rethinking and improving the functioning of a complex value chain requires effort and increased cooperation between all the key players, including the plastics producers and recyclers, the retailers and the consumers. It also calls for innovation and a shared vision to drive investment in the right direction. Increasing the sustainability of the plastics industry can generate new opportunities for innovation, competitiveness and job creation, in line with the objectives pursued by the European strategy [EC 2018].
Trashing excess packaging after purchase is no more than a drop in the ocean. Rethinking and improving, whereby bioplastics can act as protagonists, will shape our future. At a time when there is so much talk about circular economy, we should now turn words into action and fatal beauty into beneficial opportunity.
Catarino et al. [2018], Low levels of microplastics (MP) in wild mussels indicate that MP ingestion by humans is minimal compared to exposure via household fibres fallout during a meal, Environmental Pollution 237, 675 – 684
Ellen MacArthur Foundation [2017]. Towards the circular economy, pp. 99
European Commission [2018], A European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy, pp. 18
Horton et al. [2017], Microplastics in freshwater and terrestrial environments: Evaluating the current understanding to identify the knowledge gaps and future research priorities, Science of the Total Environment 586, 127 – 141
Jensen [2018]. 8 steps to solve the ocean’s plastic problem, https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/03/8-steps-to-solve-the-oceans-plastic-problem/
Lebreton et al. [2018], Evidence that the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is rapidly accumulating plastic, Scientific Reports 8, 4666, pp. 15
[1] Strictly speaking, the term “food poisoning” refers to consumption of foods that contain a toxin or poison. The key point is that the multiplication of bacteria to harmful levels takes place prior to consuming the contaminated food. In foodborne diseases, the food or water only acts as a vehicle for the disease to enter the body. The multiplication then takes place within the body where it spreads and remains for weeks or even months, potentially causing serious damage and even death.
Well, maybe not all of it is corn. But there’s an awful lot of it hiding in our food. A lot more than we ever suspected. We think our supermarkets offer huge varieties of food. Yet, much of that food comes from one single crop [Michael Pollan 2006]. And it all starts with … corn.
Corn is what feeds the cattle that becomes the meat you eat. Corn feeds chickens, ducks, turkeys and other poultry. Corn feeds millions of pigs housed in commercial pigsties as well as countless non-carnivorous fish raised in fish farms. Corn-fed chickens lay the eggs you eat for breakfast. And corn primarily feeds the dairy cows that produce the milk, butter, cheese, yogurt and ice creams.
But that’s not the end of it. Take any bag of crisps, any candy bar, any sweet biscuit, cheese spread, canned soup, salad dressing, mayonnaise or ketchup and you will see the list of ingredients includes such substances as maltodextrin, monosodium glutamate, ascorbic acid, lecithin, mono-, di-, and triglycerides, fructose-glucose syrup. And guess what? These chemicals are predominantly derived from corn, and if you wash them down with a soft drink, you are drinking corn with your corn. Since the 1980s many soft drinks and most of the fruit juices sold in supermarkets are sweetened with corn syrup.
Though fast food outlets appear to offer a vast range of products, their food and drinks have more in common than we are led to believe. According to an earlier study, the multiplicity of choice conceals the fact that the overwhelming majority of takeaway food items is actually based on one single source: corn.
Takeaway food items are overwhelmingly based on corn [ source: https://pixabay.com/ ]
Corn – whether black, brown or yellow – is a shooting star in the food firmament. For better or for worse is hard to say, though I believe the prevalence of monocultures and intensive livestock breeding cast a worrying shadow over the future of our food.
But are we sure corn is the predominant source? I returned to my huge collection of scientific papers and books and discovered convincing evidence for the overwhelming presence of corn provided by the analysis of stable isotope ratios of food samples. Ten years ago, A. Hope Jahren and Rebecca A. Kraft [2008] from the University of Hawaii discovered the omnipresence of corn by chemically analysing a variety of foods from America’s top chains. I could not help being intrigued: the authors of the paper used the same technology as I did many years ago when researching oceanic nitrogen fluxes for my PhD thesis.
Stable isotope ratio determinations are a surprisingly reliable way of tracing the origins of foods. Like all plants, corn gets its energy through photosynthesis, but it uses a method that differs slightly from other major crop plants like rice, wheat or potatoes. This difference is reflected in the plant’s ratio of two carbon isotopes – the common carbon-12 and rare carbon-13. Corn has a signature ratio that sets it apart from other crops and by association, the meat of animals that consume the plant also stand out in the same tell-tale way. The results clearly showed that most of the cows that ended up in the burgers were fed exclusively on corn. Of 162 samples of beef collected by Jahred and Kraft [2008], only 12 (less than 10 %) came from animals that were potentially fed on other sources, like grass or grains. And there were no exceptions for chickens; they had all had nothing but corn.
The same scientists also measured the levels of stable nitrogen isotopes in both chicken and beef burgers. The high levels they found indicated that the animals were fed with corn that had been grown using nitrogen-based fertilisers, and that they had been reared in very confined spaces. The fertilization required for corn production results in nitrogen-15 enriched (i.e. the rare nitrogen isotope) corn seed and silage compared with natural vegetation. Moreover, beef produced in confinement was enriched in nitrogen-15 compared with animals raised outdoors.
Interesting results. But do they really matter? One could argue that consumers have a right to know where their food comes from. Obviously, most of our food can be traced back to corn monocultures and intensive livestock farming.
Our food can be traced back to corn monocultures and intensive livestock farming [ source: https://pixabay.com/ ]
This we know. But it is imperative that the situation should change and that it should change as soon as possible!
There is simply no alternative to ecological agriculture. This may sound very final, but it is clear to me that agricultural practice has only one possible future: sustainability [Luc Pussemier and Leo Goeyens 2017].
Sustainability refers to ecology: we have to use our natural resources sensibly and abandon linear economy for circular economy; we need to drastically reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and respect and preserve biodiversity in the limited space that can and must be reserved for agricultural production.
Jahren & Kraft [2008]. Carbon and nitrogen stable isotopes in fast food: Signatures of corn and confinement, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105, 46, 17855 – 17860
Pollan [2006]. The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals, Bloomsbury
Pussemier & Goeyens [2017]. AgricultureS et Enjeux de Société, Presses Universitaires de Liège
Rather slow food than fast food! Michael Wolff, author of Fire and Fury, wrote “Sometimes Trump would have a 6:30 p.m. meeting with former chief strategist Steve Bannon, but if not, more to his liking, he was in bed by that time with a cheeseburger, watching his three screens and making phone calls.” This may sound like a nice relaxing evening for M. Average, but it is hardly the behaviour one would expect from a Head of State. Moreover, if all this is true, I have serious reservations about the eating habits of US president Trump. Are burgers really trumps?
Surely, we should not follow President Trump’s example. Recent scientific literature reinforces the link between fast food and bad cholesterol.
Never before have so many people watched so many entertaining cooking shows on television and read so much gastronomic writing, but never before have so many people spent so little time cooking food. Highly sophisticated kitchens do not necessarily imply healthy cooking! Fast food consumption has increased enormously during the last decades [Xue et al. 2016] and the increase is likely to continue. Globally, fast food generates significantly increasing revenues every year [Franchise Help 2018]. For example, the US economy hasn’t jumped by more than 3 % a year in the last 10 years, but the burger business is seriously booming. McDonald’s, Burger King, and Wendy’s reported a same-store sales jump of >3.2 % [Kramer 2017]. However, the increasing trend is not without consequence. Out-of-home foods (takeaway, take-out and fast foods) have become increasingly popular in recent decades and are thought to be a key driver in increasing levels of overweight and obesity due to their unfavourable nutritional content, the study by Janssen et al. [2017] concludes. Fast food mainly defines foods from national/multinational fast food chains, such as McDonald’s, Burger King, Pizza Hut, and can also include dining in. There are over 200 000 fast food restaurants in the US and it is estimated that 50 million Americans visit them every single day. In England, there are some 56 000 fast food outlets, representing more than a quarter of all restaurants.
Obesity has become endemic in many countries of the world, and it is suggested that diets commonly contain an overabundance of energy-dense food products. Most notably, obese people adopt modern, “westernized” diets and lifestyles. There is however no single reason why people eat out-of-home foods. The Janssen et al. [2017] study presents several key factors that influence fast food consumption. Many of them are intertwined. Economic weakness and financial instability of the consumer appear to be a strong determinant of access to out-of-home foods and consequent consumption. Additionally, the biological and psychological drives combined with a culture where overweight and obesity is becoming the norm have made it “fashionable” to consume out-of-home food.
Regular fast food consumption means more calories and fewer nutrients. Those who eat more than one takeaway meal per week (~28 % of subjects) have higher body fat mass and greater skinfold thickness than those who never or seldom consume them (~26 %), the investigation by Donin et al. [2017] explains. They also have higher total energy intake, higher percentage energy intake from both total and saturated fat, and higher energy density[1] from food intake. Regular fast food consumers also have lower protein, starch and micronutrient (vitamin C, folate and iron) intakes, suggesting a dietary pattern rich in calories, but poor in nutrients. The unhealthy dietary patterns could have undesirable health consequences, if continued into later life, the scientists warned [Donin et al. 2017]. Little is known about the associations between takeaway meal consumption and chronic disease risk markers in children. So shouldn’t our governments start considering more and better health protection initiatives to reverse the current trends in takeaway meal consumption and improve childhood diet and nutrition both at home and school?
Overall, there is a strong demand for further research into the out-of-home food phenomenon. To understand the complex interplay of biological, psychological, cultural and… determinants is essential to increase our knowledge of the factors responsible for out-of-home food consumption; to determine whether there are differences between countries; to assist in building up a coherent body of evidence; and to support the development of effective measures.
And if the potential health risks associated with the regular consumption of out-of-home food products do not put you off, then perhaps the environmental consequences will. Not only do fast food products affect your health, but it turns out that many are also bad for the environment. The whole chain of production has a considerable adverse influence [Pussemier & Goeyens 2017]. First, fast food stores sell an awful lot of meat. Most, if not all, of this meat is produced at factory farms (intensive cattle farming), which significantly contribute to greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. Second, most of these products are transported over long distances, further increasing their impact on air quality. They also have a negative effect on water quality, as pathogens, hormones, drugs, and the fertilizers they use for the cultivation of feed crops tend to seep into surrounding groundwater, potentially causing outbreaks of waterborne illness, fish kills, and other hazards. And finally, fast food restaurants also tend to use a lot of packaging. The overuse of wrappers, straws, bags, boxes, and plastic as well as ware is one of the biggest sources of urban litter and waterway and ocean contamination.
Just the once will not hurt. The occasional cheeseburger can do no harm. The same cannot be said about the daily cheeseburger in bed. The obesity epidemic shows no sign of abating. And there is a very urgent need to resist the environmental forces that are producing gradual weight gain, obesity and related diseases in the population.
Consumers must learn to adjust to sustainable food production and healthy food consumption. They must accept to pay slightly higher prices for better food products. It is a well-known fact that eating too much meat is not good for your health. But then, vegetarianism is good for your health only when diets are well-balanced, when vegetarian dishes contain enough vitamins and essential amino acids. And we should all prefer unrefined and unprocessed food products [Satija et al. 2017] over ingredient-rich ready-made dishes and delicatessen.
We should prefer healthy food, which local and short supply chains can easily provide. A first move to slightly more expensive, but higher quality foods could be a giant step in the right direction in our pursuit of healthy food and sustainable food production. To change our eating habits would be good for us and good for the planet.
So what are we waiting for?
Did you say healthy? [ source: https://pixabay.com/ ]
References
Donin et al. [2017]. Takeaway meal consumption and risk markers for coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes and obesity in children aged 9–10 years: a cross-sectional study, Archives of Disease in Childhood 0, 1 – 6
Janssen et al. [2017]. Determinants of takeaway and fast food consumption: A narrative review, Nutrition Research Reviews, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954422417000178, published online
Pussemier & Goeyens [2017]. AgricultureS & Enjeux de société, Les presses agronomiques de Gembloux, pp. 112
Satija et al. [2017]. Healthful and Unhealthful Plant-Based Diets and the Risk of Coronary Heart Disease in US Adults, Journal of the American College of Cardiology 70, 4, 411 – 422
Xue et al. [2016]. Time Trends in Fast Food Consumption and Its Association with Obesity among Children in China, PLoS ONE 11, 3, pp. 14
[1] Energy density is the amount of energy stored in a given food mass
In 2014 Jonathan O’Callaghan commented on the Queensland University of Technology project that aims to improve the quality of bananas: … The world’s first human trial of “super bananas” will start soon in the hope of a more nutritious source of food to Ugandans and East Africans. The bananas will be enriched in pro-vitamin A, which the human body can break down into “regular” vitamin A, to tackle the consequences of vitamin A deficiency in the regions. And, if the trial is successful, it’s hoped farmers could begin growing the enhanced food by 2020…
Paul et al. [2017] published the “proof-of-concept” technology required for the development and generation of pro-vitamin A fortified East African highland banana varieties in Uganda. The Cavendish dessert banana was genetically modified, and significantly enhanced pro-vitamin A levels were demonstrated in the fruits of plants grown in the field in Australia. This research project was supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and by the UK Department for International Development.
Last year, Amy Maxmen [2017] published the Nature News article “Genetically modified apple reaches US stores, but will consumers bite?”: … the “Arctic apple” is one of the first foods to be given a trait intended to please consumers rather than farmers, and it joins a small number of genetically modified organisms to be sold as a whole product, not an ingredient. Since Okanagan Specialty Fruits in Summerland, Canada, planted its first test apples in 2003, the array of foods modified in labs has expanded to include meatless burgers, made with soya protein produced by recombinant yeast, fish fillets grown from seafood stem cells, and mushrooms whose genomes have been edited with CRISPR technology. Most of these items have not yet reached the market though…
Browning (left) versus non-browning (right) apple
The apples don’t turn brown because the researchers have figured out how to silence the genes that produce the browning enzyme. Growers and opponents of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have raised concerns about genetically engineered crops and the complicated technology behind it. Health Canada however has approved the sale of genetically modified apples, and so has the US Department of Agriculture. Many are now keenly watching the Arctic apple’s launch for clues as to how consumers will perceive the “new” fruit.
When the cells of conventional apples are damaged, which happens when they are cut, bitten into or bruised, an enzyme called polyphenol oxidase (PPO) initiates a chemical reaction that turns the flesh of the fruit brown. Due to varying levels of PPO, some apple varieties brown fast, while others have a lower degree of browning. The Arctic Apple is the world’s first non-browning apple. Its flesh will retain its fresh, appealing colour even days after being sliced, which the producer claims will increase apple consumption and decrease food waste.
I can just imagine the publicity: “Crisp, wholesome, great-tasting apple slices are perfect for fresh and healthy snacks. And no time wasted”!
Recent developments of cost-effective, high-throughput sequencing technologies have resulted in significant increases in available genomic information for fruit crop species. These developments redefined the boundaries of genetic engineering and genetically modified (GM) crop plants. Since fruit (and vegetable) crops play a key role in the economy of both developed and developing countries, plenty of efforts have been made to improve crop quality. Both conventional breeding and genetic engineering techniques were used to introduce desirable genes in fruit crops. However, societal misstrust for the latter technologies, coupled with misleading and false information regarding their safety, makes it difficult and even impossible to successfully commercialise GMOs [Pussemier & Goeyens 2017].
Some twenty years ago, Hawaiian papaya farmers were in big trouble. Ringspot virus, transmitted by insects, was destroying their crops. Farmers tried everything to eradicate the virus: selective breeding, crop rotation, quarantine. Nothing worked. One scientist however had a different idea: what if a gene, known as the coat protein, could be transferred from a harmless part of the virus to the papaya’s DNA? Would the GM papaya then be immune to the virus? And so it was! A fierce battle broke out between GMO supporters and opponents, but in the end the GMO supporters won and the papaya survived. Papayas that are resistant to ringspot virus have now been cultivated in the US for more than a decade [Kanchiswamy et al. 2015; Saletan 2015].
On the whole, there seems to be more scope for marketing new GM varieties, developed with novel technologies, that enhance the consumer experience (fruit crops, for example, with increased levels of antioxidants, more flavour or sweetness) in addition to other improvements such as pest and disease resistance. Moreover, when biotechnology is used to target the luxury product market, it easily gains consumer acceptance. Examples include the blue pigmented roses developed jointly in Japan and Australia, using a transgene for the expression of the blue pigment delphinidin [Katsumoto et al. 2007]. Not an unimportant chemical, since it is common knowledge that delphinidin also possesses strong antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties.
The market can certainly be expected to offer a larger choice of products in the future, including GM food products which, in addition to environmental and societal benefits, will provide novelty and enhanced quality, thereby enriching the quality of the consumer experience.
Today, most transgenic fruit crop plants have been developed using Agrobacterium-mediated transformation. Among those that have been developed, only papaya has so far been commercialised. Following the regulatory and social hurdles associated with transgenic crops, novel biotechnological tools have emerged. They allow for the insertion of specific genes that make it possible for genes to be modified or replaced at their genomic location without involving any other source of DNA [Liu et al. 2013; Araki et al. 2014]. The absence of foreign DNA and the introduction of genes derived from the same plant species should help enhance consumer acceptance of novel GM plant products (food products) that were developed using those technologies [Kanchiswamy et al. 2015].
With the development and improvement of those technologies, the time is right to revisit the benefits of genetic modification and initiate the development of novel, consumer acceptable products. Recently designed tools will enable modifications or mutations of genes of interest without involving foreign DNA. As a result, plants developed using this technology could be considered as non-transgenic genetically altered plants. According to Kanchiswamy et al. [2015] this would open the door for the development of fruit crops with superior phenotypes and allow them to be commercialised even though GM crops are currently poorly accepted, with the exception of a few products such as the super bananas that produce more vitamin A, and the non-browning apples that do not turn brown after being cut and retain their original and natural flavour and taste for long periods of time.
A list of recently engineered plants presents a number of valuable options: drought tolerant corn, virus resistant plums, potatoes with fewer natural toxins, and soybeans that produce less saturated fat. A global inventory by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization discusses other projects currently in the pipeline: virus resistant beans, heat tolerant sugarcane, salt tolerant wheat, disease resistant cassava, high-iron rice, and cotton that requires less nitrogen fertilizer. The news media regularly provide information about ambitious scientific projects: high-calcium carrots [Park et al. 2004], antioxidant tomatoes [Verhoeyen et al. 2002], non-allergenic nuts [Robotham et al. 2009, and references herein], bacteria resistant oranges [Cardoso et al. 2010], corn and cassava loaded with extra nutrients, and a flax-like plant that produces the healthy oil formerly available only in fish [Jhala & Hall 2010].
There is a great deal genetic engineering can do for public health and for the quality of our planet. We cannot afford to engage in a wasteful fight over GMOs, in a sterile fight “for life and death” between an army of quacks and pseudo-environmentalists waging a war on science and a gang of corporate cowards who would rather stick to profitable weed-killing [Saletan 2015].
Honest, scientific arguments should always prevail!
Araki et al. [2014]. Caution required for handling genome editing technology, Trends in Biotechnology 32, 5, 234 – 237
Cardoso et al. [2010]. Transgenic Sweet Orange (Citrus sinensis L. Osbeck) Expressing the attacin A Gene for Resistance to Xanthomonas citri subsp. Citri, Plant Molecular Biology Reporter 28, 2, 185 – 192
Jhala & Hall [2010]. Flax (Linum usitatissimum L.): Current Uses and Future Applications, Australian Journal of basic and Applied Sciences 4, 9, 4304 – 4312
Kanchiswamy et al. [2015]. Looking forward to genetically edited fruit crops, Trends in Biotechnology 33, 2, 62 – 64
Katsumoto et al. [2007]. Engineering of the Rose Flavonoid Biosynthetic Pathway Successfully Generated Blue-Hued Flowers Accumulating Delphinidin, Plant Cell Physiology 48, 11, 1589 – 1600
Liu et al. [2013]. Advanced genetic tools for plant biotechnology, Nature Reviews Genetics 14, 781 – 793
Maxmen [2017]. Genetically modified apple reaches US stores, but will consumers bite? Nature 551, 149 – 150
Park et al. [2004]. Increased calcium in carrots by expression of an Arabidopsis H+/Ca2+ transporter, Molecular Breeding 14, 3, 275 – 282
Paul et al. [2017]. Golden bananas in the field: elevated fruit pro-vitamin A from the expression of a single banana transgene, Plant Biotechnology Journal 15, 520 – 532
Pussemier & Goeyens [2017]. AgricultureS & Enjeux de société, Les presses agronomiques de Gembloux, pp. 112
Robotham et al. [2009]. Linear IgE-epitope mapping and comparative structural homology modeling of hazelnut and English walnut 11S globulins, Molecular Immunology 46, 2975 – 2984
Saletan [2015]. Unhealthy Fixation – The war against genetically modified organisms is full of fearmongering, errors, and fraud. Labeling them will not make you safer, Slate, July 15
Verhoeyen et al. [2002]. Increasing antioxidant levels in tomatoes through modification of the flavonoid biosynthetic pathway, Journal of Experimental Botany 53, 377, Fruit Development and Ripening Special Issue, 2099 – 2106
The Agrifood Atlas warns that the monopolising of the food chain by “ever-fewer-ever-larger” corporations has far reaching consequences for our food system. The Agrifood Atlas compiled by the Heinrich Böll Foundation [https://www.boell.de/en], the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation [https://www.rosalux.de/en/] and Friends of the Earth Europe [http://www.foeeurope.org/] stresses the fact that agrifood corporations foster industrialisation along the entire global value chain, i.e. along the farm-to-plate chain. Moreover, corporate purchasing and sales policies advocate a form of agriculture that predominantly centres around productivity.
Concentration and monopolisation also promote the unstoppable onward march of industrial agriculture and inevitably therefore its associated effects on the environment and climate. The loss of soil fertility and biodiversity, the uncontrolled pollution of marine and estuarine ecosystems and above all the worrying greenhouse gas emissions [Pussemier & Goeyens 2017] are most noticeable negative repercussions of the spread of industrial farming. But despite these concerns the rate of consolidation in the agrifood sector continues to accelerate. Unfortunately, there is hardly any reorientation in sight. On the contrary, attempts to produce binding rules concerning human rights, working conditions and environmental quality are often undermined.
Neither protectionism nor deregulation has ever permanently slowed down the growth rate of the agrifood industry. Mergers make firms bigger. The first large agricultural corporations with global reach emerged at the end of the 19th century in Britain, which was then the world’s dominant commercial power. Farm labour was to a large extent mechanised. Agrochemicals were invented and marketed. Trains, ships, and planes revolutionised freight transport. And new technologies improved both the preservation and storage of food products. Free trade removed tariff barriers and capital shortages were overcome by selling crops even before the seeds had been put in arable soil.
Scientific investigation of fertilisation was launched around 1840 by John Bennet Lawes (1814 – 1900) at the Rothamsted Experimental Station. He studied the impact of inorganic as well as organic fertilisers on crop yield and founded one of the first artificial fertiliser manufacturing factories. Fertiliser, in the form of Chilean nitrate or guano (birds droppings) was imported by Britain. The first commercial process for fertiliser synthesis was the production of phosphate from the dissolution of coprolites or fossilised faeces in sulphuric acid [Wikipedia].
During the first half of the 20th century, big firms in the USA and Europe turned themselves into transnational corporations by investing in other countries, rather than merely exporting their products. Since the 1980s, the transnational crop companies have increasingly become global players. In developing countries, liberalisation dismantled official controls over commodity markets and tariff barriers, leading to a rapid expansion of global trade in foodstuffs. Big retailers began organising new supply chains to source fresh produce from developing countries. Additionally, they expanded in the larger countries of the developing world to serve the needs of the new middle classes. Recently, much of the action has shifted to the developing world, more particularly to China, which has become the leading market for commodities. New global players are emerging and at the same time, the digital revolution and biotechnology are redefining the sector. Big data and intelligent data treatment systems result in the emergence of new external players.
Despite their all-embracing power, the food majors have so far paid little attention to the impact of their actions on the world at large. They should also address issues such as hunger, malnutrition, environmental quality and climate change, waste disposal, sustainability, health and disease, as well as social justice. These concerns have clearly been highlighted by social movements, international conventions and civil society organisations. The latter exert more pressure than ever before on global corporations by increasingly appealing for changes to be made in current production approaches, marketing methods and purchasing practices.
The Agrifood Atlas reveals a largely ignored aspect of agri-food sector restructuring. Concentration and monopolisation in the agrifood sector [https://www.rosalux.de/en/] are increasingly being driven not by company shareholders, but by private equity firms, i.e. investment management companies that provide financial backing and make investments in the private equity of startup or operating companies through a variety of loosely affiliated investment strategies, including leveraged buyout, venture capital, and growth capital. Typically, private equity firms raise pools of capital or private equity funds that supply the contributions for these transactions. They receive a periodic management fee as well as a share in the profits earned from each private equity fund managed [Wikipedia].
The private equity firm, 3G Capital from Brazil [http://www.3g-capital.com/], controls several of the world’s largest food and beverage corporations. The founding partners of 3G Capital are Jorge Paulo Lemann, Marcel Telles, Carlos Alberto Sicupira, Roberto Thompson, and Alex Behring. The firm has offices in New York City and Rio de Janeiro. Since 2004, 3G Capital has led or accompanied mergers, which have created the world largest beer company (AB InBev) and one of the top three largest fast food companies (Burger King).
In July 2015, 3G Capital partnered with Berkshire Hathaway to complete the combination of H. J. Heinz Company and Kraft Foods Group, forming the Kraft Heinz Company, following 3G and Berkshire’s acquisition of Heinz in June 2013. Previously, in December 2014, 3G Capital completed the combination of Burger King and Tim Hortons, forming Restaurant Brands International, following 3G Capital’s acquisition of Burger King in October 2010. Affiliates of 3G Capital’s Partners have been influential shareholders of AB Inbev since 1989 and Lojas Americanas since 1983 [http://www.3g-capital.com/]. In February 2017, 3G Capital attempted, through Kraft Heinz, to take over its much larger rival Unilever for 143 billion US dollars. The offer was rejected. In 2016, Mondelez, a 2012 Kraft spin off confectionery maker, failed to take over Hershey, a US chocolate maker. These failures have increased the likelihood of Mondelez being reabsorbed into Kraft Heinz.
3G Captial’s takeover strategy is just the tip of the iceberg. Almost all large food companies have launched their own venture capital arms in recent years, investing in smaller, upcoming brands. Aggressive takeovers driven by venture capital have now become commonplace occurrences. Hence, we urgently need (new) regulations, that seriously limit the hold of the financial sector on the agri-food sector.
The increasing size and power of agri-food corporations is threatening the quality of our food as well as the working conditions of the people that produce it. The European Union can and should play a leading part in rejecting these consolidations [Friends of the Earth Europe].
The European Commission currently faces a decision on whether to authorize the potential Bayer-Monsanto mega-merger. European regulators could approve it by early 2018. There is now growing pressure to intervene and block the formation of the agri-food giant. In the recently published study by the University College London, Lianos & Katalevsky [2017] argue that this deal would raise prices and increase farmer dependency on the combined entity. If the deal were to get the go-ahead, just three companies – ChemChina-Syngenta, DuPont-Dow and Bayer-Monsanto – would own and sell two-thirds of the world’s pesticides and 60 % of the world’s patented seeds.
Alternative food production systems are possible and are now being operated by local food producers and farmers across Europe, creating safer jobs and greener farms [Pussemier & Goeyens 2017].
The switch to ecological farming has now become a matter of do or die. This may sound like a peremptory statement. All the same, the agriculture of the future will need to adopt the principles of sustainability. It will occupy a large part of the planet’s mainland as well as its oceans and estuaries, if fishing and aquaculture are also taken into account. Moreover, agriculture employs large numbers of people – many of them farming for their daily food. We simply cannot go on depleting resources, destroying biodiversity and increasing greenhouse gas emissions in the limited area that can and must be reserved for agricultural activities and production.
The diversity of cultures is greater than one might imagine (courtesy of Luc Pussemier)
Intensive industrial agriculture is fuelling and accelerating climate change. The cultivation of new land is being carried out at the expense of pristine areas – the rain forest, for example – which are currently important carbon sinks. Moreover, global warming will lead to substantial losses of arable land (arid zones, areas near or even below sea level); a vicious cycle accompanied by negative social consequences (such as migration) and one that offers little or no escape.
Agriculture will have to be sustainable in the future. And to be sustainable, the laws of Ecology must be observed. Tomorrow’s agriculture will therefore have to be ecological.
Ecological farming is in fact already well under way in European countries: the bio-diversity that can be observed in our fields makes our environment more attractive (see figure); and the care provided to the crops and livestock is becoming more respectful of the environment and animal welfare. European decision makers can play a leading role in rejecting undesirable mega-mergers, since ecological food systems clearly provide a viable alternative.
Lianos & Katalevsky [2017]. Merger Activity in the Factors of Production Segments of the Food Value Chain: A Critical Assessment of the Bayer/Monsanto merger, Centre for Law, Economics and Society, Faculty of Laws, University College London
Pussemier & Goeyens [2017]. AgricultureS & Enjeux de société, Les Presses Agronomiques de Gembloux
Cinnamon has been known since ancient times. It received much attention in China as is witnessed by its entry in the ancient books on Chinese botanical medicine (dated ~2700 AD), attributed to the mythical Chinese sovereign Shennong. In Ayurveda, the Hindu health doctrine from India, cinnamon is recommended for the treatment of diabetes and indisposition. Ancient Egyptians used it for beverage flavouring and in medicines, but also as an ingredient for the preparation of embalming agents. It was treasured and considered even more precious than gold [Goeyens 2014].
As described in the Old Testament, cinnamon was also an essential ingredient of a holy anointing oil for the tabernacle: … The Lord said to Moses “Take the finest spices: of liquid myrrh 500 shekels, and of sweet-smelling cinnamon half as much, that is, 250, and 250 of aromatic cane, and 500 of cassia, according to the shekel of the sanctuary, and a hin of olive oil. And you shall make of these asacred anointing oil blended as by the perfumer; it shall be a holy anointing oil… [Exodus 30, 22 – 29].
Years ago, I came across an article by Montero-Prado et al. [2011] in which the authors demonstrate how the processing of cinnamon essential oil (EO) into plastic packaging and labelling materials extends the shelf life of the succulent, yellow Calanda peach. Peaches with Calanda Peach Certificate of Origin owe their market fame to their exceptional flavour and sweetness. Every single peach is bagged on the tree for the last 2 months of growth to allow the fruit to ripen inside a protective “pouch”. This guarantees its purity since the bag virtually prevents any contact between the fruit and phytosanitary or other chemical agents. Moreover, “cinnamon-rich” packaging can achieve a significantly longer shelf life. For my tutorials I have often used this application to illustrate active packaging. Active packaging materials and objects are intended to extend the shelf-life and/or maintain or improve the condition of packaged food. They are generally designed to deliberately incorporate components that release substances into the packaged food or its surrounding environment.
Since first reading about cinnamon and the Calanda peach, I have been fascinated by the exceptional properties of the spice and its many beneficial applications. The unique healing abilities of cinnamon EOs come from three major chemical components, i.e. cinnamaldehyde, cinnamyl acetate and cinnamyl alcohol. However, since EOs are highly complex, multi-component mixtures, it is quite possible that a wide range of other volatile substances adds to the favourable health effects [Bakkali et al. 2008].
Many developing countries, particularly in South Asia, are witnessing an alarming increase in the prevalence of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Economic, dietary and a number of other lifestyle changes have been occurring rapidly in most South Asian countries, making their populations more vulnerable to developing type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular diseases. Recent data show a significantly increasing prevalence in urban areas, but also in semi-urban and rural areas. Prime determinants for type 2 diabetes in South Asian populations include physical inactivity due to urbanisation and mechanisation, imbalanced diets, abdominal obesity, excess hepatic fat as well as inadequate perinatal and early life nutrition [Misra et al. 2014].
Metabolic syndrome is a cluster of conditions — including increased blood pressure, high blood sugar, excess body fat around the waist, and abnormal cholesterol or triglyceride levels — that seriously increases the risk of heart disease, stroke and diabetes. Individuals with metabolic syndrome are 5 times more at risk of developing type 2 diabetes and 3 times more likely to suffer a heart attack or stroke compared to people without the syndrome [Paoletti et al. 2006]. These individuals are also two times more likely to die from type 2 diabetes and a heart attack or stroke. Metabolic syndrome affects 20 to 30 % of urban city dwellers in India.
The question, then, is could a simple means offer an affordable solution? The recent publication by Jain et al. [2017] includes a strong, positive message: cinnamon supplements alleviate metabolic syndrome.
According to a trial led by the University of Delhi, regular cinnamon supplementation counters all aspects of metabolic syndrome in Indian adults. Previous investigations suggested a potential role of cinnamon and its components in improving insulin sensitivity. For example, it has already been reported that cinnamate, a phenolic compound found in the inner bark of cinnamon trees, provides protection against lipemic-oxidative disorder. Moreover, it acts as a hypocholesterolemic (cinnamon lowers the cholesterol levels), and hepatoprotective (cinnamon suppresses lipid peroxidation by enhancing antioxidant enzyme activity in the liver) agent in laboratory rats on a high-fat diet [Amin et al. 2009].
Cinnamon bark is peeled and laid in the sun to dry where it curls up into rolls known as cinnamon sticks; it can also be obtained ground into a powder
Hence, a 16-week randomised controlled trial was conducted with 116 Asian Indian subjects (64 men and 52 women), who had metabolic syndrome. They were divided into two groups. Participants in the first group were given 2.5 g of a wheat flour each day as a placebo, and in the second group, each participant received 3 g of powdered cinnamon daily. Both the wheat flour as well as the cinnamon were administered in capsule form.
Compared to the placebo group, the subjects of the cinnamon intervention group experienced greater weight loss and increase of High-density lipoprotein (HDL or good) cholesterol, as well as a pronounced decrease in waist circumference, Low-density lipoprotein (LDL or bad) and total cholesterol, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and body fat percentage. Additionally, the aqueous extract of cinnamon stem bark has been shown to reduce sucrose-induced elevation in systolic blood pressure of spontaneously hypertensive rats, as well as lower diastolic and systolic blood pressure in pre-diabetic and diabetic humans.
The results of the latter study are very promising. The authors [Jain et al. 2017] show obvious decreases in measures of glycemia, adiposity including abdominal obesity, lipids, and blood pressure. The percentage of individuals with metabolic syndrome was significantly decreased with a single cinnamon nutrient intervention.
Cinnamon adds depth and warmth to sweet and savory dishes. Cinnamon quills or sticks are prominently present in cookbooks and kitchen bibles. Everyone is familiar with the essential ingredient of cinnamon rolls, apple stuffed chicken breast, cinnamon pork loin, nectarine chutney, acorn squash stuffed with apples, banana cake with cinnamon glaze and hundreds of other recipes.
Cinnamon is a prime ingredient in sweets and baked dishes. It is also an unobtrusive, but much appreciated addition to marinades, beverages, dressings, meat and fish. Guyana’s national pepper pot is a stewed beef dish, strongly flavoured with cinnamon, hot peppers and cassareep, a special sauce made from the Cassava root. Egyptian Luqmat al-Qadi are small, round and crunchy donuts served with dusted cinnamon and powdered sugar. In Mexico, cinnamon is added as a flavouring agent to chocolate.
Many exclusive liqueurs and bitters also contain cinnamon. It is said that the monks of the Benedictine Abbey of Fécamp in French Normandy have developed a medicinal aromatic herbal beverage. In fact, it was Alexander the Great who invented the recipe himself, with the help of a local chemist [Wikipedia]. The exact list of herbs and their proper proportions are closely guarded trade secrets, but cinnamon is obviously one of the ingredients of the herbal drink Bénédictine.
As was to be expected, cinnamon became a favourite household spice. It has been used throughout the world for centuries. Cinnamon has a very pleasant flavour and a warm smell, which has made it very popular in cooking, baking, curries and all kinds of drinks.
More surprisingly maybe, cinnamon was also once traded as a currency. During the first century AD, the Roman author Pliny the Elder wrote of 350 grams of cinnamon as being equal in value to over five kilograms of silver.
Should preference be given to cinnamon-rich dishes ? While the results of the study by Jain et al. [2017] are very promising, they should be tested in a larger sample over a longer period of time. Clearly, the end of the chosen path is not yet in sight. It would be a serious mistake, however, to disregard such an interesting and promising development.
This being said, I would certainly not recommend consuming large quantities of cinnamon. Cinnamon can have several dangerous medical side effects, because of the coumarin it contains which when ingested in excessive amounts could cause serious health problems [Iwata et al. 2016]. Coumarin is a naturally occurring flavouring substance in cinnamon and many other plants. It is hepatotoxic, thins the blood and causes cancer in rodents. Fotland et al. [2011] established a new Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) for coumarin of 0.07 mg per kg of body weight. By using cinnamon on oatmeal or other cereals just a few times a week, it was estimated that the TDI in children and adults can be greatly exceeded. Moreover, these scientists claim that even a few weeks of ingesting high amounts of coumarin can have serious adverse effects.
Other undesirable substances in cinnamon are safrole and styrene. Normally, only traces of safrole are found in cinnamon. Higher concentrations are, however, common in oils from cinnamon leaves, which may be used for blending purposes with other cinnamon oils. Styrene is formed in cinnamon under unfavourable transport and storage conditions.
Research must now continue. And scientists need to confirm or contradict promising early results with convincing, strong arguments.
Research is four different things: brains with which to think, eyes with which to see, machines with which to measure and, fourth, money [Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, Nobel prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1937]. This can only come about through efficient co-operation between all actors: scientists, decision makers, industrialists and consumers.
So let us hope that all the thinking, seeing, measuring and financing will confirm the beneficial effects of cinnamon on human health!
References
Amin et al. [2009]. Oxidative markers, nitric oxide and homocysteine alteration in hypercholesterolimic rats: role of atorvastatine and cinnamon, International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine 2, 254-265Bakkali et al. [2008]. Biological effects of essential oils – A review, Food and Chemical Toxicology 46, 446
Fotland et al. [2011]. Risk assessment of coumarin using the bench mark dose (BMD) approach: Children in Norway which regularly eat oatmeal porridge with cinnamon may exceed the TDI for coumarin with several folds, Food and Chemical Toxicology 50, 3 – 4, 903 – 912
Goeyens [2014]. Cinnamon has amazingly exceptional and beneficial properties, but we must be careful !, in Food and Packaging: a chemical spark, ACCO, Leuven
Iwata et al. [2016]. The Relation between Hepatotoxicity and the Total Coumarin Intake from Traditional Japanese Medicines Containing Cinnamon Bark, Frontiers in Pharmacology7, Article 174
Jain et al. [2017]. Effect of oral cinnamon intervention on metabolic profile and body composition of Asian Indians with metabolic syndrome: a randomized double-blind control trial, Lipids in Health and Disease 16, 113
Misra et al. [2014].Diabetes in South Asians, Diabetic Medicine 31, 1153–1162
Montero-Prado et al. [2011]. Active label-based packaging to extend the shelf-life of “Calanda” peach fruit: Changes in fruit quality and enzymatic activity, Postharvest Biology and Technology 60, 211– 219
Paoletti et al. [2006]. Metabolic Syndrome, Inflammation and Atherosclerosis, Vascular Health and Risk Risk Management 2, 2, 145–152
