Search Results for: eden hazard diet plan

Low-carbohydrate diets or low-carb diets are dietary programs that restrict carbohydrate consumption, often for the treatment of obesity or diabetes. Foods high in easily digestible carbohydrates (e.g., sugar, bread, pasta) are limited or replaced with foods containing a higher percentage of fats and moderate protein (e.g., meat, poultry, fish, shellfish, eggs, cheese, nuts, and seeds) and other foods low in carbohydrates (e.g., most salad vegetables such as spinach, kale, chard and collards), although other vegetables and fruits (especially berries) are often allowed. The amount of carbohydrate allowed varies with different low-carbohydrate diets.

Such diets are sometimes 'ketogenic' (i.e., they restrict carbohydrate intake sufficiently to cause ketosis). The induction phase of the Atkins diet[1][2][3] is ketogenic.

The term "low-carbohydrate diet" is generally applied to diets that restrict carbohydrates to less than 20% of caloric intake, but can also refer to diets that simply restrict or limit carbohydrates to less than recommended proportions (generally less than 45% of total energy coming from carbohydrates).[4][5]

Low-carbohydrate diets are used to treat or prevent some chronic diseases and conditions, including cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome, auto-brewery syndrome, high blood pressure, and diabetes.[6][7]

Gary Taubes has argued that low-carbohydrate diets are closer to the ancestral diet of humans before the origin of agriculture, and humans are genetically adapted to diets low in carbohydrate.[8] Direct archaeological or fossil evidence on nutrition during the Paleolithic, when all humans subsisted by hunting and gathering, is limited, but suggests humans evolved from the vegetarian diets common to other great apes to one with a greater level of meat-eating.[9] Some close relatives of modern Homo sapiens, such as the Neanderthals, appear to have been almost exclusively carnivorous.[10]

A more detailed picture of early human diets before the origin of agriculture may be obtained by analogy to contemporary hunter-gatherers. According to one survey of these societies, a relatively low carbohydrate (2240% of total energy), animal food-centered diet is preferred "whenever and wherever it [is] ecologically possible", and where plant foods do predominate, carbohydrate consumption remains low because wild plants are much lower in carbohydrate and higher in fiber than modern domesticated crops.[11] Primatologist Katherine Milton, however, has argued that the survey data on which this conclusion is based inflate the animal content of typical hunter-gatherer diets; much of it was based on early ethnography, which may have overlooked the role of women in gathering plant foods.[12] She has also highlighted the diversity of both ancestral and contemporary foraging diets, arguing no evidence indicates humans are especially adapted to a single paleolithic diet over and above the vegetarian diets characteristic of the last 30 million years of primate evolution.[13]

The origin of agriculture brought about a rise in carbohydrate levels in human diets.[14] The industrial age has seen a particularly steep rise in refined carbohydrate levels in Western societies, as well as urban societies in Asian countries, such as India, China, and Japan.

In 1797, John Rollo reported on the results of treating two diabetic Army officers with a low-carbohydrate diet and medications. A very low-carbohydrate, ketogenic diet was the standard treatment for diabetes throughout the 19th century.[15][16]

In 1863, William Banting, a formerly obese English undertaker and coffin maker, published "Letter on Corpulence Addressed to the Public", in which he described a diet for weight control giving up bread, butter, milk, sugar, beer, and potatoes.[17] His booklet was widely read, so much so that some people used the term "Banting" for the activity usually called "dieting".[18]

In 1888, James Salisbury introduced the Salisbury steak as part of his high-meat diet, which limited vegetables, fruit, starches, and fats to one-third of the diet.[original research?]

In the early 1900s Frederick Madison Allen developed a highly restrictive short term regime which was described by Walter R. Steiner at the 1916 annual convention of the Connecticut State Medical Society as The Starvation Treatment of Diabetes Mellitus.[19]:176177[20][21][22] People showing very high urine glucose levels were confined to bed and restricted to an unlimited supply of water, coffee, tea, and clear meat broth until their urine was "sugar free"; this took two to four days but sometimes up to eight.[19]:177 After the person's urine was sugar-free food was re-introduced; first only vegetables with less than 5g of carbohydate per day, eventually adding fruits and grains to build up to 3g of carbohydrate per kilogram of body weight. Then eggs and meat were added, building up to 1g of protein/kg of body weight per day, then fat was added to the point where the person stopped losing weight or a maximum of 40 calories of fat per kilogram per day was reached. The process was halted if sugar appeared in the person's urine.[19]:177178 This diet was often administered in a hospital in order to better ensure compliance and safety.[19]:179

In 1958, Richard Mackarness M.D. published Eat Fat and Grow Slim, a low-carbohydrate diet with much of the same advice and based on the same theories as those promulgated by Robert Atkins more than a decade later. Mackarness also challenged the "calorie theory" and referenced primitive diets such as the Inuit as examples of healthy diets with a low-carbohydrate and high-fat composition.

In 1967, Irwin Stillman published The Doctor's Quick Weight Loss Diet. The "Stillman diet" is a high-protein, low-carbohydrate, and low-fat diet. It is regarded as one of the first low-carbohydrate diets to become popular in the United States.[23] Other low-carbohydrate diets in the 1960s included the Air Force diet[24] and the drinking man's diet.[25]Austrian physician Wolfgang Lutz published his book Leben Ohne Brot (Life Without Bread) in 1967.[26] However, it was not well known in the English-speaking world.

In 1972, Robert Atkins published Dr. Atkins Diet Revolution, which advocated the low-carbohydrate diet he had successfully used in treating patients in the 1960s (having developed the diet from a 1963 article published in JAMA).[27] The book met with some success, but, because of research at that time suggesting risk factors associated with excess fat and protein, it was widely criticized by the mainstream medical community as being dangerous and misleading, thereby limiting its appeal at the time.[28] Among other things, critics pointed out that Atkins had done little real research into his theories and based them mostly on his clinical work. Later that decade, Walter Voegtlin and Herman Tarnower published books advocating the Paleolithic diet and Scarsdale diet, respectively, each meeting with moderate success.[29][not in citation given]

The concept of the glycemic index was developed in 1981 by David Jenkins to account for variances in speed of digestion of different types of carbohydrates. This concept classifies foods according to the rapidity of their effect on blood sugar levels with fast-digesting simple carbohydrates causing a sharper increase and slower-digesting complex carbohydrates, such as whole grains, a slower one.[30] The concept has been extended to include the amount of carbohydrate actually absorbed, as well, as a tablespoonful of cooked carrots is less significant overall than a large baked potato (effectively pure starch, which is efficiently absorbed as glucose), despite differences in glycemic indices.

In the 1990s, Atkins published an update from his 1972 book, Dr. Atkins New Diet Revolution, and other doctors began to publish books based on the same principles. This has been said to be the beginning of what the mass media call the "low carb craze" in the United States.[31] During the late 1990s and early 2000s, low-carbohydrate diets became some of the most popular diets in the US. By some accounts, up to 18% of the population was using one type of low-carbohydrate diet or another at the peak of their popularity,[32] and this use spread to many countries.[citation needed]Food manufacturers and restaurant chains like Krispy Kreme noted the trend, as it affected their businesses.[33] Parts of the mainstream medical community has denounced low-carbohydrate diets as being dangerous to health, such as the AHA in 2001,[34] the American Kidney Fund in 2002,[35] Low-carbohydrate advocates did some adjustments of their own, increasingly advocating controlling fat and eliminating trans fat.[36][37]

Proponents who appeared with new diet guides at that time like the Zone diet intentionally distanced themselves from Atkins and the term 'low carb' because of the controversies, though their recommendations were based on largely the same principles .[38][39] It can be controversial which diets are low-carbohydrate and which are not.[citation needed] The 1990s and 2000s saw the publication of an increased number of clinical studies regarding the effectiveness and safety (pro and con) of low-carbohydrate diets (see low-carbohydrate diet medical research).

In the United States, the diet has continued to garner attention in the medical and nutritional science communities, and also inspired a number of hybrid diets that include traditional calorie-counting and exercise regimens.[7][40][41][42] Other low-carb diets, such as the Paleo Diet, focus on the removal of certain foods from the diet, such as sugar and grain.[43] On September 2, 2014 a small randomized trial by the NIH of 148 men and women comparing a low-carbohydrate diet with a low fat diet without calorie restrictions over one year showed that participants in the low-carbohydrate diet had greater weight loss than those on the low-fat diet.[44] The low-fat group lost weight, but appeared to lose more muscle than fat.[45]

No consensus definition exists of what precisely constitutes a low-carbohydrate diet.[46] Medical researchers and diet advocates may define different levels of carbohydrate intake when specifying low-carbohydrate diets.[46][not in citation given]

The American Academy of Family Physicians defines low-carbohydrate diets as diets that restrict carbohydrate intake to 20 to 60 grams per day, typically less than 20% of caloric intake.[47]

The body of research underpinning low-carbohydrate diets has grown significantly in the decades of the 1990s and 2000s.[48][49] Most research centers on the relationship between carbohydrate intake and blood sugar levels (i.e., blood glucose), as well as the two primary hormones produced in the pancreas, that regulate the blood sugar level, insulin, which lowers it, and glucagon, which raises it.[50]

Low-carbohydrate diets in general recommend reducing nutritive carbohydrates, commonly referred to as "net carbs", i.e., grams of total carbohydrates reduced by the non-nutritive carbohydrates[51][52] to very low levels. This means sharply reducing consumption of desserts, breads, pastas, potatoes, rice, and other sweet or starchy foods. Some recommend levels less than 20g of "net carbs" per day, at least in the early stages of dieting[53] (for comparison, a single slice of white bread typically contains 15g of carbohydrate, almost entirely starch). By contrast, the U.S. Institute of Medicine recommends a minimum intake of 130g of carbohydrate per day.[54] The FAO and WHO similarly recommend that the majority of dietary energy come from carbohydrates.[55][56]

Although low-carbohydrate diets are most commonly discussed as a weight-loss approach, some experts have proposed using low-carbohydrate diets to mitigate or prevent diseases, including diabetes, metabolic disease, and epilepsy.[57][58] Some low-carbohydrate proponents and others argue that the rise in carbohydrate consumption, especially refined carbohydrates, caused the epidemic levels of many diseases in modern society, including metabolic disease and type 2 diabetes.[59][60][61][62]

A category of diets is known as low-glycemic-index diets (low-GI diets) or low-glycemic-load diets (low-GL diets), in particular the Low GI Diet.[63] In reality, low-carbohydrate diets can also be low-GL diets (and vice versa) depending on the carbohydrates in a particular diet. In practice, though, "low-GI"/"low-GL" diets differ from "low-carb" diets in the following ways: First, low-carbohydrate diets treat all nutritive carbohydrates as having the same effect on metabolism, and generally assume their effect is predictable. Low-GI/low-GL diets are based on the measured change in blood glucose levels in various carbohydrates these vary markedly in laboratory studies. The differences are due to poorly understood digestive differences between foods. However, as foods influence digestion in complex ways (e.g., both protein and fat delay absorption of glucose from carbohydrates eaten at the same time) it is difficult to even approximate the glycemic effect (e.g., over time or even in total in some cases) of a particular meal.[64]

The low-insulin-index diet, is similar, except it is based on measurements of direct insulemic responses i.e., the amount of insulin in the bloodstream to food rather than glycemic response the amount of glucose in the bloodstream. Although such diet recommendations mostly involve lowering nutritive carbohydrates, some low-carbohydrate foods are discouraged, as well (e.g., beef).[65] Insulin secretion is stimulated (though less strongly) by other dietary intake. Like glycemic-index diets, predicting the insulin secretion from any particular meal is difficult, due to assorted digestive interactions and so differing effects on insulin release.[citation needed]

At the heart of the debate about most low-carbohydrate diets are fundamental questions about what is a 'normal' diet and how the human body is supposed to operate. These questions can be outlined as follows.

The diets of most people in modern Western nations, especially the United States, contain large amounts of starches, including refined flours, and substantial amounts of sugars, including fructose. Most Westerners seldom exhaust stored glycogen supplies and rarely go into ketosis. This has been regarded by the majority of the medical community in the last century as normal for humans.[citation needed] Ketosis should not be confused with ketoacidosis, a dangerous and extreme ketotic condition associated with type I diabetes. Some in the medical community have regarded ketosis as harmful and potentially life-threatening, believing it unnecessarily stresses the liver and causes destruction of muscle tissues.[citation needed] A perception developed that getting energy chiefly from dietary protein rather than carbohydrates causes liver damage and that getting energy chiefly from dietary fats rather than carbohydrates causes heart disease and other health problems. This view is still held by the majority of those in the medical and nutritional science communities.[66][67][68] However, it is now widely recognized that periodic ketosis is normal, and that ketosis provides a number of benefits, including neuroprotection against diverse types of cellular injury.[69]

People critical of low-carbohydrate diets cite hypoglycemia and ketoacidosis as risk factors. While mild acidosis may be a side effect when beginning a ketogenic diet,[70][71] no known health emergencies have been recorded. It should not be conflated with diabetic ketoacidosis, which can be life-threatening.

A diet very low in starches and sugars induces several adaptive responses. Low blood glucose causes the pancreas to produce glucagon,[72] which stimulates the liver to convert stored glycogen into glucose and release it into the blood. When liver glycogen stores are exhausted, the body starts using fatty acids instead of glucose. The brain cannot use fatty acids for energy, and instead uses ketones produced from fatty acids by the liver. By using fatty acids and ketones as energy sources, supplemented by conversion of proteins to glucose (gluconeogenesis), the body can maintain normal levels of blood glucose without dietary carbohydrates.

Most advocates of low-carbohydrate diets, such as the Atkins diet, argue that the human body is adapted to function primarily in ketosis.[73][74] They argue that high insulin levels can cause many health problems, most significantly fat storage and weight gain. They argue that the purported dangers of ketosis are unsubstantiated (some of the arguments against ketosis result from confusion between ketosis and ketoacidosis, which is a mostly diabetic condition unrelated to dieting or low-carbohydrate intake).[75] They also argue that fat in the diet only contributes to heart disease in the presence of high insulin levels and that if the diet is instead adjusted to induce ketosis, fat and cholesterol in the diet are beneficial. Most low-carb diet plans discourage consumption of trans fat.

On a high-carbohydrate diet, glucose is used by cells in the body for the energy needed for their basic functions, and about two-thirds of body cells require insulin to use glucose. Excessive amounts of blood glucose are thought to be a primary cause of the complications of diabetes, when glucose reacts with body proteins (resulting in glycosolated proteins) and change their behavior. Perhaps for this reason, the amount of glucose tightly maintained in the blood is quite low. Unless a meal is very low in starches and sugars, blood glucose will rise for a period of an hour or two after a meal. When this occurs, beta cells in the pancreas release insulin to cause uptake of glucose into cells. In liver and muscle cells, more glucose is taken in than is needed and stored as glycogen (once called 'animal starch').[76] Diets with a high starch/sugar content, therefore, cause release of more insulin, and so more cell absorption. In diabetics, glucose levels vary in time with meals and vary a little more as a result of high-carbohydrate meals. In nondiabetics, blood-sugar levels are restored to normal levels within an hour or two, regardless of the content of a meal.

However, the ability of the body to store glycogen is finite. Once liver and muscular stores are full to the maximum, adipose tissue (subcutaneous and visceral fat stores) becomes the site of sugar storage in the form of fat.[citation needed] The body's ability to store fat is almost limitless, hence the modern dilemma of morbid obesity.

While any diet devoid of essential fatty acids (EFAs) and essential amino acids (EAAs) will result in eventual death, a diet completely without carbohydrates can be maintained indefinitely because triglycerides (which make up fat stored in the body and dietary fat) include a (glycerol) molecule which the body can easily convert to glucose.[77] It should be noted that the EFAs and all amino acids are structural building blocks, not inherent fuel for energy. However, a very-low-carbohydrate diet (less than 20 g per day) may negatively affect certain biomarkers[78] and produce detrimental effects in certain types of individuals (for instance, those with kidney problems). The opposite is also true; for instance, clinical experience suggests very-low-carbohydrate diets for patients with metabolic syndrome.[79]

Because of the substantial controversy regarding low-carbohydrate diets and even disagreements in interpreting the results of specific studies, it is difficult to objectively summarize the research in a way that reflects scientific consensus.[80] Although some research has been done throughout the 20th century,[81] most directly relevant scientific studies have occurred in the 1990s and early 2000s. Researchers and other experts have published articles and studies that run the gamut from promoting the safety and efficacy of these diets[82][83] to questioning their long-term validity[84][85] to outright condemning them as dangerous.[86][87] A significant criticism of the diet trend was that no studies evaluated the effects of the diets beyond a few months. However, studies emerged which evaluate these diets over much longer periods, controlled studies as long as two years and survey studies as long as two decades.[82][88][89][90][91]

A systematic review published in 2014 included 19 trials with a total of 3,209 overweight and obese participants, some with diabetes. The review included both extreme low carbohydrate diets high in both protein and fat, as well as less extreme low carbohydrate diets that are high in protein but with recommended intakes of fat. The authors found that when the amount of energy (kilojoules/calories) consumed by people following the low carbohydrate and balanced diets (45 to 65% of total energy from carbohydrates, 25 to 35% from fat, and 10 to 20% from protein) was similar, there was no difference in weight loss after 3 to 6 months and after 1 to 2 years in those with and without diabetes. For blood pressure, cholesterol levels and diabetes markers there was also no difference detected between the low carbohydrate and the balanced diets. The follow-up of these trials was no longer than two years, which is too short to provide an adequate picture of the long term risk of following a low carbohydrate diet.[5]

A 2003 meta-analysis that included randomized controlled trials found that "low-carbohydrate, non-energy-restricted diets appear to be at least as effective as low-fat, energy-restricted diets in inducing weight loss for up to one year."[92][93][94] A 2007 JAMA study comparing the effectiveness of the Atkins low-carb diet to several other popular diets concluded, "In this study, premenopausal overweight and obese women assigned to follow the Atkins diet, which had the lowest carbohydrate intake, lost more weight and experienced more favorable overall metabolic effects at 12 months than women assigned to follow the Zone, Ornish, or LEARN diets."[89] A July 2009 study of existing dietary habits associated a low-carbohydrate diet with obesity, although the study drew no explicit conclusion regarding the cause: whether the diet resulted in the obesity or the obesity motivated people to adopt the diet.[95] A 2013 meta-analysis that included only randomized controlled trials with one year or more of follow-up found, "Individuals assigned to a very low carbohydrate ketogenic diet achieve a greater weight loss than those assigned to a low fat diet in the long term."[96] In 2013, after reviewing 16,000 studies, Sweden's Council on Health Technology Assessment concluded low-carbohydrate diets are more effective as a means to reduce weight than low-fat diets, over a short period of time (six months or less). However, the agency also concluded, over a longer span (1224 months), no differences occur in effects on weight between strict or moderate low-carb diets, low-fat diets, diets high in protein, Mediterranean diet, or diets aiming at low glycemic indices.[97]

In one theory, one of the reasons people lose weight on low-carbohydrate diets is related to the phenomenon of spontaneous reduction in food intake.[98]

Carbohydrate restriction may help prevent obesity and type 2 diabetes,[99][100] as well as atherosclerosis.[101]

Potential favorable changes in triglyceride and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol values should be weighed against potential unfavorable changes in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and total cholesterol values when low-carbohydrate diets to induce weight loss are considered.[102] However, the type of LDL cholesterol should also be taken into account here, as it could be that small, dense LDL is decreased and larger LDL molecules are increased with low-carb diets.[citation needed] The health effects of the different molecules are still being elucidated, and many cholesterol tests do not account for such details, but small, dense LDL is thought to be problematic and large LDL is not. A 2008 systematic review of randomized controlled studies that compared low-carbohydrate diets to low-fat/low-calorie diets found the measurements of weight, HDL cholesterol, triglyceride levels, and systolic blood pressure were significantly better in groups that followed low-carbohydrate diets. The authors of this review also found a higher rate of attrition in groups with low-fat diets, and concluded, "evidence from this systematic review demonstrates that low-carbohydrate/high-protein diets are more effective at six months and are as effective, if not more, as low-fat diets in reducing weight and cardiovascular disease risk up to one year", but they also called for more long-term studies.[103]

A study of more than 100,000 people over more than 20 years within the Nurses' Health Study observationally concluded a low-carbohydrate diet high in vegetables, with a large proportion of proteins and oils coming from plant sources, decreases mortality with a hazard ratio of 0.8.[104] In contrast, a low-carbohydrate diet with largely animal sources of protein and fat increases mortality, with a hazard ratio of 1.1.[104] This study, however, has been met with criticism, due to the unreliability of the self-administered food frequency questionnaire, as compared to food journaling,[105] as well as classifying "low-carbohydrate" diets based on comparisons to the group as a whole (decile method) rather than surveying dieters following established low-carb dietary guidelines like the Atkins or Paleo diets.[106]

Opinions regarding low-carbohydrate diets vary throughout the medical and nutritional science communities, yet government bodies, and medical and nutritional associations, have generally opposed this nutritional regimen.[citation needed] Since 2003, some organizations have gradually begun to relax their opposition to the point of cautious support for low-carbohydrate diets. Some of these organizations receive funding from the food industry.[citation needed] Official statements from some organizations:

The AAFP released a 'discussion paper' on the Atkins diet in 2006. The paper expresses reservations about the Atkins plan, but acknowledges it as a legitimate weight-loss approach.[107]

The ADA revised its Nutrition Recommendations and Interventions for Diabetes in 2008 to acknowledge low-carbohydrate diets as a legitimate weight-loss plan.[108][109] The recommendations fall short of endorsing low-carbohydrate diets as a long-term health plan, and do not give any preference to these diets. Nevertheless, this is perhaps the first statement of support, albeit for the short term, by a medical organization.[110][111] In its 2009 publication of Clinical Practice Recommendations, the ADA again reaffirmed its acceptance of carbohydrate-controlled diets as an effective treatment for short-term (up to one year) weight loss among obese people suffering from type two diabetes.[112]

As of 2003 in commenting on a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association, a spokesperson for the American Dietetic Association reiterated the association's belief that "there is no magic bullet to safe and healthful weight loss."[113] The Association specifically endorses the high-carbohydrate diet recommended by the National Academy of Sciences. They have stated "Calories cause weight gain. Excess calories from carbohydrates are not any more fattening than calories from other sources. Despite the claims of low-carb diets, a high-carbohydrate diet does not promote fat storage by enhancing insulin resistance."[114][bettersourceneeded]

As of 2008[update] the AHA states categorically that it "doesn't recommend high-protein diets."[115] A science advisory from the association further states the association's belief that these diets "may be associated with increased risk for coronary heart disease."[34] The AHA has been one of the most adamant opponents of low-carbohydrate diets.[citation needed] Dr. Robert Eckel, past president, noted that a low-carbohydrate diet could potentially meet AHA guidelines if it conformed to the AHA guidelines for low fat content.[116]

The position statement by the Heart Foundation regarding low-carbohydrate diets states, "the Heart Foundation does not support the adoption of VLCARB diets for weight loss."[46] Although the statement recommends against use of low-carbohydrate diets, it explains their major concern is saturated fats as opposed to carbohydrate restriction and protein. Moreover, other statements suggest their position might be re-evaluated in the event of more evidence from longer-term studies.

The consumer advice statements of the NHS regarding low-carbohydrate diets state that "eating a high-fat diet could increase your risk of heart disease" and "try to ensure starchy foods make up about a third of your diet"[117]

In 2008, the Socialstyrelsen in Sweden altered its standing regarding low-carbohydrate diets.[118] Although formal endorsement of this regimen has not yet appeared, the government has given its formal approval for using carbohydrate-controlled diets for medically supervised weight loss.

In a recommendation for diets suitable for diabetes patients published in 2011 a moderate low-carb option (3040%) is suggested.[119]

The HHS issues consumer guidelines for maintaining heart health which state regarding low-carbohydrate diets that "they're not the route to healthy, long-term weight management."[120]

Low-carbohydrate diets became a major weight loss and health maintenance trend during the late 1990s and early 2000s.[121][122][123] While their popularity has waned recently from its peak, they remain popular.[124][125] This diet trend has stirred major controversies in the medical and nutritional sciences communities and, as yet, there is not a general consensus on their efficacy or safety.[126][127] Many in the medical community remain generally opposed to these diets for long term health[128] although there has been a recent softening of this opposition by some organizations.[129][130]

Because of the substantial controversy regarding low-carbohydrate diets, and even disagreements in interpreting the results of specific studies, it is difficult to objectively summarize the research in a way that reflects scientific consensus.[131][132][133]

Although there has been some research done throughout the twentieth century, most directly relevant scientific studies have occurred in the 1990s and early 2000s and, as such, are relatively new and the results are still debated in the medical community.[132] Supporters and opponents of low-carbohydrate diets frequently cite many articles (sometimes the same articles) as supporting their positions.[134][135][136] One of the fundamental criticisms of those who advocate the low-carbohydrate diets has been the lack of long-term studies evaluating their health risks.[137][138] This has begun to change as longer term studies are emerging.[82]

A 2012 systematic review studying the effects of low-carbohydrate diet on weight loss and cardiovascular risk factors showed the LCD to be associated with significant decreases in body weight, body mass index, abdominal circumference, blood pressure, triglycerides, fasting blood sugar, blood insulin and plasma C-reactive protein, as well as an increase in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL). Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL) and creatinine did not change significantly. The study found the LCD was shown to have favorable effects on body weight and major cardiovascular risk factors (but concluded the effects on long-term health are unknown). The study did not compare health benefits of LCD to low-fat diets.[139]

A meta-analysis published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 2013 compared low-carbohydrate, Mediterranean, vegan, vegetarian, low-glycemic index, high-fiber, and high-protein diets with control diets. The researchers concluded that low-carbohydrate, Mediterranean, low-glycemic index, and high-protein diets are effective in improving markers of risk for cardiovascular disease and diabetes.[140]

In the first week or two of a low-carbohydrate diet, much of the weight loss comes from eliminating water retained in the body.[141] The presence of insulin in the blood fosters the formation of glycogen stores in the body, and glycogen is bound with water, which is released when insulin and blood sugar drop.[citation needed][142] A ketogenic diet is known to cause dehydration as an early, temporary side-effect.[143]

Advocates of low-carbohydrate diets generally dispute any suggestion that such diets cause weakness or exhaustion (except in the first few weeks as the body adjusts), and indeed most highly recommend exercise as part of a healthy lifestyle.[142][144] A large body of evidence stretching back to the 1880s shows that physical performance is not negatively affected by ketogenic diets once a person has been accustomed to such a diet.[145]

Arctic cultures, such as the Inuit, were found to lead physically demanding lives consuming a diet of about 1520% of their calories from carbohydrates, largely in the form of glycogen from the raw meat they consumed.[145][146][147][148] However, studies also indicate that while low-carb diets will not reduce endurance performance after adapting, they will probably deteriorate anaerobic performance such as strength-training or sprint-running because these processes rely on glycogen for fuel.[144]

Many critics argue that low-carbohydrate diets inherently require minimizing vegetable and fruit consumption, which in turn robs the body of important nutrients.[149] Some critics imply or explicitly argue that vegetables and fruits are inherently all heavily concentrated sources of carbohydrates (so much so that some sources treat the words 'vegetable' and 'carbohydrate' as synonymous).[150] While some fruits may contain relatively high concentrations of sugar, most are largely water and not particularly calorie-dense. Thus, in absolute terms, even sweet fruits and berries do not represent a significant source of carbohydrates in their natural form, and also typically contain a good deal of fiber which attenuates the absorption of sugar in the gut.[151] Lastly, most of the sugar in fruit is fructose, which has a reported negligible effect on insulin levels in obese subjects.[152]

Most vegetables are low- or moderate-carbohydrate foods (in the context of these diets, fiber is excluded because it is not a nutritive carbohydrate). Some vegetables, such as potatoes and carrots, have high concentrations of starch, as do corn and rice. Most low-carbohydrate diet plans accommodate vegetables such as broccoli, spinach, cauliflower, and peppers.[153] The Atkins diet recommends that most dietary carbs come from vegetables. Nevertheless, debate remains as to whether restricting even just high-carbohydrate fruits, vegetables, and grains is truly healthy.[154]

Contrary to the recommendations of most low-carbohydrate diet guides, some individuals may choose to avoid vegetables altogether to minimize carbohydrate intake. Low-carbohydrate vegetarianism is also practiced.

Raw fruits and vegetables are packed with an array of other protective chemicals, such as vitamins, flavonoids, and sugar alcohols. Some of those molecules help safeguard against the over-absorption of sugars in the human digestive system.[155][156] Industrial food raffination depletes some of those beneficial molecules to various degrees, including almost total removal in many cases.[157]

The major low-carbohydrate diet guides generally recommend multivitamin and mineral supplements as part of the diet regimen, which may lead some to believe these diets are nutritionally deficient. The primary reason for this recommendation is that if the switch from a high-carbohydrate to a low-carbohydrate, ketogenic diet is rapid, the body can temporarily go through a period of adjustment during which it may require extra vitamins and minerals. This is because the body releases excess fluids stored during high-carbohydrate eating. In other words, the body goes through a temporary "shock" if the diet is changed to low-carbohydrate quickly, just as it would changing to a high-carbohydrate diet quickly. This does not, in and of itself, indicate that either type of diet is nutritionally deficient. While many foods rich in carbohydrates are also rich in vitamins and minerals, many low-carbohydrate foods are similarly rich in vitamins and minerals.[158]

A common argument in favor of high-carbohydrate diets is that most carbohydrates break down readily into glucose in the bloodstream, and therefore the body does not have to work as hard to get its energy in a high-carbohydrate diet as a low-carbohydrate diet. This argument, by itself, is incomplete. Although many dietary carbohydrates do break down into glucose, most of that glucose does not remain in the bloodstream for long. Its presence stimulates the beta cells in the pancreas to release insulin, which has the effect of causing about two-thirds of body cells to take in glucose, and causing fat cells to take in fatty acids and store them. As the blood-glucose level falls, the amount of insulin released is reduced; the entire process is completed in non-diabetics in an hour or two after eating.[citation needed] High-carbohydrate diets require more insulin production and release than low-carbohydrate diets,[citation needed] and some evidence indicates the increasingly large percentage of calories consumed as refined carbohydrates is positively correlated with the increased incidence of metabolic disorders such as type 2 diabetes.[159]

In addition, this claim neglects the nature of the carbohydrates ingested. Some are indigestible in humans (e.g., cellulose), some are poorly digested in humans (e.g., the amylose starch variant), and some require considerable processing to be converted to absorbable forms. In general, uncooked or unprocessed (e.g., milling, crushing, etc.) foods are harder (typically much harder) to absorb, so do not raise glucose levels as much as might be expected from the proportion of carbohydrate present. Cooking (especially moist cooking above the temperature necessary to expand starch granules) and mechanical processing both considerably raise the amount of absorbable carbohydrate and reduce the digestive effort required.

Analyses which neglect these factors are misleading and will not result in a working diet, or at least one which works as intended. In fact, some evidence indicates the human brain the largest consumer of glucose in the body can operate more efficiently on ketones (as efficiency of source of energy per unit oxygen).[160]

The restriction of starchy plants, by definition, severely limits the dietary intake of microbiota accessible carbohydrates (MACs) and may negatively affect the microbiome in ways that contribute to disease.[161] Starchy plants, in particular, are a main source of resistant starch an important dietary fiber with strong prebiotic properties.[162][163][164] Resistant starches are not digestible by mammals and are fermented and metabolized by gut flora into short chain fatty acids, which are well known to offer a wide range of health benefits.[163][165][166][167][168][169] Resistant starch consumption has been shown to improve intestinal/colonic health, blood sugar, glucose tolerance, insulin-sensitivity and satiety.[170][171][172] Public health authorities and food organizations such as the Food and Agricultural Organization, the World Health Organization,[173] the British Nutrition Foundation[174] and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences[175] recognize resistant starch as a beneficial carbohydrate. The Joint Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations/World Health Organization Expert Consultation on Human Nutrition stated, "One of the major developments in our understanding of the importance of carbohydrates for health in the past twenty years has been the discovery of resistant starch."[173]

In 2004, the Canadian government ruled that foods sold in Canada could not be marketed with reduced or eliminated carbohydrate content as a selling point, because reduced carbohydrate content was not determined to be a health benefit. The government ruled that existing "low carb" and "no carb" packaging would have to be phased out by 2006.[176]

Some variants of low-carbohydrate diets involve substantially lowered intake of dietary fiber, which can result in constipation if not supplemented.[citation needed] For example, this has been a criticism of the induction phase of the Atkins diet (the Atkins diet is now clearer about recommending a fiber supplement during induction). Most advocates[who?][dubious discuss] today argue that fiber is a "good" carbohydrate and encourage a high-fiber diet.[citation needed]

See the original post here:
Low-carbohydrate diet - Wikipedia

Two food technologists offer insights on nutrition, food safety and security in relation to the ongoing pandemic.

Food is an essential part of life, providing us with the nutrition we need for survival; but the pandemic has plunged the entire food system into eccentric circumstances. The lack of adequate food, combined with labour shortages, fragmented supply chains and panic over associated health hazards, could lead to paucity of proper nutrition and food scarcity.

Thus, various preventative actions should be taken by the concerned authorities to mitigate these negative impacts on the food system. This article will outline the most pressing issues related to nutrition, food safety and security during the current pandemic crisis, as well as strategies to mitigate them and novel approaches to reinforce the food system for the post-pandemic era.

COVID-19 mainly affects the lower respiratory tract and poses a significant risk for the older population, immune-compromised individuals (cancer, organ transplant and HIV-AIDS patients), and those with comorbid conditions (diabetes, obesity and blood pressure issues).

The food we consume has a significant impact on our health and wellbeing. Foods rich in micronutrients (vitamins and minerals), functional foods containing bioactive molecules (antioxidants, anti-inflammatory substances and immune boosters), herbs, spices, dietary fibres and probiotics all offer an immune system boost and help to combat viral infections.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has issued guidelines regarding nutrition for adults, which includes consuming eight to 10 glasses of water per day, fruits (two cups), vegetables (2.5 cups), whole grains, legumes, nuts, meat, milk, eggs and fish. In addition, WHO recommends consuming moderate amounts of fats and oils, and limiting the intake of salt, sugar and highly processed foods rich in saturated fats and refined carbohydrates.1

During this crisis, various bioactive compounds can help to improve our immunity.2 For example, vitamin C- (ascorbic acid) rich foods, such as citrus fruits, amla, kiwi and broccoli, can help enhance our immunity against respiratory tract infections. Likewise, vitamin A- (retinol, retinoic acid and -carotene) rich fruits and vegetables, including papaya, carrots, spinach and sweet potato, can also help to lower susceptibility to infections. Moreover, supplements of vitamin D, vitamin E and minerals such as copper, iron, zinc and magnesium have been highly acclaimed to enhance our resistance to coronavirus infections.

Apart from the above-mentioned immunity boosters, various herbs, spices, herbal concoctions, Chinese herbal formulations and other traditional medicinal systems (Ayurveda, siddha and Homeopathy) have also shown promising outcomes in battling COVID-19.

There have been no reports to date that suggest COVID-19 is foodborne. However, it has been stated that the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 through food is possible if the person handling the food is infected and then sneezes or coughs directly on the said food. The other routes of transmission might be through the consumption of raw meat from an infected animal or handling of contaminated food packages.

To minimise the risk of food contamination in food processing facilities, it is important to ensure that good hygiene practices are effectively implemented. In addition, it is crucial that all personnel involved in food handling (raw materials handling, processing, storage and distribution of the final food product to the consumer) follow stringent social distancing and sanitisation practices.

Furthermore, door, window and machine handles, taps and other high-touch areas should be frequently disinfected. The use of face masks, gloves, face shields and personal protective equipment (PPE) can also be beneficial in containing the spread of infection from human-to-human as well as from human-to-food.

Various research studies have proved that coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS are heat labile, becoming inactive at temperatures higher than 65C.3,4 Due to similarity between SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2, a study conducted by Chin, et al. (2020) found that SARS-CoV-2 gets inactivated at 70C after incubating for five minutes.5 Therefore, it is stressed that no viruses survive this thermal treatment, hence it is crucial for consumers to refrain from eating any kind of raw meat and consume only well-cooked foods.

Nevertheless, we cannot deny the fact that animal-based foods are of higher risk as there are opportunities for the re-emergence of novel viruses from animal sources (slaughterhouses and seafood markets) to humans. For this reason, it is essential to reconsider our food system, which is highly reliant on animal-based protein sources. We need to make paradigm shifts towards sustainable food sources such as plant-based foods, lab-grown meats, alternative proteins from insects and microalgae, and recover bioactive compounds from food byproducts and waste.

It has been reported that SARS-CoV-2 can survive up to two and three days on stainless steel and plastic, respectively.6 This suggests that it may be possible for the virus to transmit from packaging material to hand, and subsequently to the mouth, eyes or nose. Hence, hand washing and sanitising should follow every time a package is handled.

There is an emerging need and research potential to design and develop active and intelligent packaging materials with antiviral and antimicrobial properties. Sportelli, et al. (2020) has reported that the packaging films coated with nanomaterials and nanoparticles (Cu, Ag and Zn) has significant potential to inhibit microbial contamination of food packaging surfaces and thus lessen the transmission of infections.7

Disinfecting high-touch surfaces is crucial to keep food safe

The smooth functioning of all the operations involved in food production systems (farm to fork) is necessary to prevent global food shortages. However, the food industry is currently facing an unprecedented threat in terms of food security and food safety. It is evident from various epidemiological studies that COVID-19 spreads mainly through direct contact between individuals and with contaminated surfaces; consequently, those involved in the food chain have been at particular risk.

In order to ensure that food is available to all, it is imperative for all food processing businesses to strengthen existing food hygiene and sanitation practices, and introduce additional measures to protect food workers from contracting COVID-19. Strategies that balance the need for continuous production and protection of workers should be carefully designed.

Due to movement restrictions and lockdowns, transportation and shipping operations have become complicated, with food companies that import raw ingredients being badly impacted. An effective strategy to alleviate the crisis has been to strengthen and provide technical solutions to local producers and small food supply chains, as they are less restricted by lockdown regulations.

Overstocking of food by consumers, either due to panic buying or false information, may also result in food shortages. Some of the measures taken by China and Italy during the first few months of COVID-19 were to ban illicit trading, profiteering and hoarding of food products.

COVID-19 has created many unforeseen challenges for agriculturists, food manufacturers, scientists and consumers. Food industries need to strategically plan and ensure adequate supply of safe and nutritious food for everyone.

The possibility of COVID-19 being foodborne is negligible; however, there is still a need for advanced research studies to fully understand the possible transmission route of COVID-19 through food. Thus, there is a necessity to develop rapid and affordable methods for detection of SARS-CoV-2 throughout the food supply chain.

Until the world is fully vaccinated, there are opportunities for food technologists to design and formulate functional foods for different vulnerable groups in order to boost their immunity.

References

Follow this link:
COVID-19 and its impact on the food system - New Food

Wildfires started burning in California early again this dry seasonmore than two million acres have burned so far. Larger and larger wildfires are occurring as new heat records are being broken each year.

Firefighting efforts have leaned heavily on aerial spraying of fire retardants, but their environmental and health effects are little studied, says Jordyn Ellorin, VG19, a native Californian who received an M.S. in conservation medicine (MCM) from Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine.

For the capstone requirement of her masters program, Ellorin focused on the sustainability of current methods for fighting wildfires in California. (She now works as an animal diet technician for San Diego Zoo Global, where she did her MCM externship.)

Tufts Now talked to Ellorin about what she learned about wildfire management and mitigationand the consequences of those efforts.

Tufts Now: Does the use of these long-term fire retardants in California seem to be increasing?

Jordyn Ellorin: I cant speak to what is occurring with this round of fires. However, I can tell you from my research that the safety and usage guidelines for the fire retardants were developed nearly forty years ago. And the research that informed those guidelines was based on the amounts of chemicals that they were spraying back then, not at these increased amounts we see now.

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) publish an estimated budget each year that contains the amount of flame retardant that they expect to use during the next fire season based on previous years and label-use specifications of the products. At the end of the year another report is published stating the amount of fire retardant actually used. These reports show that the actual use exceeded the anticipated amount for all years since 2014.

Why is that?

Its due in part to larger wildfires that are occurring as new heat records are being broken each year and from climate change and humans further encroaching on wildland areas.

The use of long-term fire retardants is designed to slow the fire ahead of ground crews so they can access and gain control of the fire. But fire retardants are now being used instead of ground crews, according to Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics, and Ecology (FUSEE), and the 19 million gallons sprayed on Californias federal lands is being applied differently than originally intended.

CalFire and USFS are not supposed to spray retardants within 300 feet of any waterway for environmental health reasons. However, theres an addendum to that rule that says you can spray near any waterway if human life or property is in danger.

In recent years, more people are living in forested areas, areas between urban and wild habitats, and other places where there is a fuel load for wildfires. So now theres a need to spray retardants in areas where they traditionally wouldnt have been allowedand then downstream effects from that.

What are the downstream effects on animals?

The really worrisome aspect is that we dont truly know. These fire retardants havent been fully studied over long periods of time at the increased amounts were currently using.

We do know that sprayed fire retardants feed harmful algal blooms along waterways and are toxic to fish. A 2014 study showed that the active ingredient in one common sprayed fire retardant is toxic to chinook salmon, causing death from direct exposure, as well as gill damage that would lead to reduced ocean survival at even dilute amounts. This is concerning, as salmon populations are a major contributor to the California river and ocean ecosystems and already in jeopardy as a native species.

On a larger scale, studies in the Canadian Arctic have shown that brominated fire retardants, which are now banned, accumulate in food systems from fish to wolf.

Until recently, these retardants were commonly used in close-contact household items such as furniture, so their effects have been better studied. It demonstrates the potential for exposure to fire retardants to create ripple effects in the environment and wildlife far from where they are first used.

And what about the effect on people?

On the human side, the chemicals material safety data sheets say that the retardants are not toxic to people but should not be ingested. The retardants are dyed orange so that when people see them come out of the planes, they know they shouldnt eat any food from their garden.

However, things can get tricky if your garden is sprayed while youre evacuated, because the fire retardants turn clear once exposed to sunlight. Meanwhile, California supplies more than two-thirds of the nations fruit and vegetables.

The U.S. Geological Services has a group, Columbia Environmental Research Center, that is working to pull together longitudinal research on effects of these fire-retardant chemicals. But there is currently nothing published on their effects on Californias agricultural products.

Human health researchers also have expressed concern that, although there is published research about the human hazards of smoke inhalation from wildfires, little is known about the inhalation of fire-retardant chemicals once theyre burned off by wildfires.

Can spraying fire retardants actually create more fuel for fire down the road?

One of the main components of most fire retardants is ammonium phosphate, which is a basic plant multi-nutrient fertilizer. When we essentially spray a fertilizer over California, so-called invasive plant species grow faster and outcompete the states native plant species, which do not thrive in a fertilized environment.

The non-native plant species then flourish in Californias wet season. And when this season changes to a very dry summer, there is a lot of dead brush or dead plant material that creates the fuel load for wildfires.

How can California adapt to prevent these dangerous fires before they start?

That is the key question. Fires are environmentally necessary. They burn dead or dry brush and other plant material first, clearing the forest and allowing space and light for new plants to thrive. Within some ecosystems, fires influence seedling germination, forest structure, and soil composition. They are how many wild plants seed and regrow, so theyre important for the states native species.

But if we're spraying fertilizer and all these non-native species are coming up and outcompeting the native species, how do we stop that cycle from feeding these huge wildfires? My case study while I was at Cummings looked at two potential mitigation tactics: prescribed fires and grazing.

Pine needles and other dry plant material burns hot and fast and, at a small level, thats okay. You want that dry plant material to burn and replenish the nutrients into the soil. But if too much of it burns, it starts catching the trees on fire. Once the trees start burning, the fire becomes super-hot and starts moving really fast. That is hard to stop.

California doesnt really have the human resources to safely conduct enough small controlled burns to thin that potential fuel load. And in the dry summer months, you dont want to conduct these prescribed fires, because thats when things can get out of control.

What about grazingis it a more feasible mitigation measure?

You dont want to graze those native plant habitats that are really vital to our state. But grazing could be a useful mitigation tactic in hilly or mountainous areas. Firefighters have a really hard time fighting fires on hills because they cant get trucks in there and fires tend to move up and down hills very quickly. So using livestock animals that are able to climb up and down those hills and graze and clear the ground of dead brush and plants would be helpful.

Goats may be a little bit less detrimental to the environment. You need fewer of them to browse an area clean, as they eat many different types of plant material when compared to cattle. Theyre also not quite as heavy as cattle, so they dont till up the ground quite as much as cows do. However, grazing is still a measure that has to be undertaken carefully, as domestic animals still will eat native plants that wildlife could be eating.

The USFS already leases land to agriculture professionals for grazing purposes, but this approach to land use could be further utilized to holistically benefit humans, animals, and the environment.

It sounds like there are competing interests at issue herepeoples safety and their property versus wildlife and the environment.

Growing up in northern California, I had experienced fire season, but within the last 10 years, every fire season has been labeled unprecedented and devastating to larger populations of the state. I think now that the majority of people living in the state have experienced the panic of evacuating or are related to someone who has.

It's hard to balance people feeling safe where they live and knowing how human actions are affecting the environment they live in. Further studying the effects of what we are doing currently will give people a better idea of humans impact and the opportunity to come up with innovative solutions for fire management.

Genevieve Rajewski can be reached at genevieve.rajewski@tufts.edu

See more here:
The Consequences of Spraying Fire Retardants on Wildfires - Tufts Now

The Scottish Government has outlined what the first phase of the reopening will entail.

This includes changes in guidance to allow for the planning of schools returning and the gradual resumption of key support services in the community subject to appropriate physical distancing and hygiene measures.

The following information is courtesy of Aberdeen City Council.

Local authorities, Police Scotland and other bodies have a central role to play in the implementing of the easing of restrictions and local authorities are central to the reopening planning and consultation process.

This will continue during the four phases of easing the lockdown but with a move from rules and regulations and enforcement to a more consensual approach with the public being asked to respect guidance.

Enforcement measures will remain and the focus of Trading Standards and Environmental Health officers will be on restrictions on those businesses that cannot yet open and physical distancing measures for those that can.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) remains the regulator for premises including manufacturing, construction, waste and sites subject to major hazards legislation.

Inquiries about working safely to protect people from Covid-19 at work can be raised with HSE.

Councils are the main regulator for retail, wholesale distribution and warehousing, hotel and catering premises, offices, and the consumer/leisure industries, including the requirements of physical distancing on these premises.

If you have concerns about a business in Aberdeen is not complying with the regulations, including physical distancing, you can report your concerns online via the relevant councils website.

Police Scotland has sole responsibility under the regulations for dealing with restrictions on movement and public gatherings not associated with the operation of a business.

All businesses and services must take all reasonable measures to ensure:

For retail business, breaches would include a failure to maintain one or more of the measures outline above. A business which opens despite being specifically prohibited from doing so by the regulations would also be a breach.

If you have concerns about a business in Aberdeen that is not complying with physical distancing as detailed above, you can report your concern here.

If the business is located in Aberdeenshire, you can report them here.

Hazlehead, Bucksburn, and Tullos Household Waste and Recycling Centres will operate from Monday on normal summer opening hours, from 10am to 7.45pm from Monday to Friday and from 9am to 7.45pm on Saturdays and Sundays.

The Tullos site will however be closed on Wednesdays.

Always check the Council website for the latest information before travelling to a recycling centre.

Sites will only open where it is considered safe to do so. It is not considered safe to open the site at Bridge of Don at this time. Demand is expected to be high when the sites first open, with queues likely, and the Bridge of Don site is accessed directly off busy main road where extensive queuing could be hazardous.

Dyce recycling centre is now close permanently as agreed at the Councils budget meeting in March.

To adhere with physical distancing rules, there are a number of changes to the way the sites operate:

Only one person per vehicle is permitted unless you are a blue badge holder and then you can bring a passenger to unload your waste if required.

As staff cannot help you unload please only bring to site what one person can safely carry.

No. Large vans or trailers are not permitted for now. The sites are expected to be busy when they reopen and banning larger vehicles will allow more vehicles to access the sites.

No, pedestrian access is not permitted at any time.

No. This is to ensure that physical distancing measures are observed. Visitors are asked only to bring what they can safely deposit in the skips themselves. If for any reason you need to speak to staff during your visit, please wave to get their attention and keep 2m distance at all times.

The range of materials accepted at the site at this time is restricted to household general waste, non-electrical bulky waste, garden waste and cardboard. No other materials are being accepted at this time.

The range of materials accepted at the sites is reduced to accommodate physical distancing measures on-site and help reduce queueing traffic by minimising visiting times and maximising the number of vehicles through the sites.

There are disposal outlets for other recyclables either via the kerbside collection and/or local Recycling Points at supermarkets, shopping centres and other convenient community locations.

You should keep them for now. Store them safely at home until they are accepted at the recycling centres.

No. White goods (e.g. washing machines, fridges etc) are not accepted just now. Check if your electrical goods supplier will remove and recycle your old item when they deliver your new one. Many do, although they may charge a fee. Alternatively, you could book a bulky uplift.

Do not bring waste at any time which has been used when Coronavirus symptoms have been present i.e. used tissues, wipes etc. This should be kept separately, double bagged and left for 72 hours before placing in your household bin.

No, commercial waste cannot be disposed of at Household Waste Recycling Centres at any time. This is a breach of the site licence and it must be disposed of via a licensed waste operator/site.

Due to the restrictions imposed during the Coronavirus crisis we are unable to say when or if sites will open normally as they used to. We will continue to review the situation in line with Government guidance and work to ensure that our sites are operating as fully as possible within the safety guidelines that are required to keep staff and site users safe.

In line with the Scottish Governments announcement and in common with all local Scottish authorities, we anticipate schools in Aberdeen will re-open on 11 August 2020.

We await guidance from the Scottish Negotiating Committee for Teachers in order to confirm our arrangements.

This is not a decision that Aberdeen City Council can take in isolation but in consultation with the Local Negotiating Committee for Teachers following the receipt of guidance from the Scottish Teachers Negotiating Committee.

We cannot speculate on that and cannot comment until negotiations are concluded and a way forward agreed. Information will be shared with staff as soon as it is available.

No, the Scottish Government is taking a different approach to learning and ask that we deliver a blended model of teaching a mixture of part-time study in school and learning at home.

Physical distancing will still need to be observed. It is likely that the curriculum and timetables will be slightly different.

Class sizes will be significantly smaller in order to accommodate physical distancing. Pupils will spend some of their time in class and some of their time learning at home. Time in school will gradually increase as soon as it is safe to do so and in line with Scottish Government guidance.

For example, some children could attend on alternate days, mornings only or may have set day and times to attend over the week. The service is currently exploring what this will look like in individual schools and will be sharing plans with parents, carers and children and young people as soon as they are able to.

Schools will implement physical distancing measures. For example, staggered arrivals, departures and break times and providing classroom seating that takes 2 metre distancing into account.

The service is currently determining the capacity of each school and will only be able to take decisions on spaces used for delivering in school learning when this has been done.

We are currently in the process of determining how many teachers will be in a position to deliver in school learning. Some staff may continue to deliver in home learning if they are shielding and cannot attend school buildings.

Aberdeen schools and teachers have already been innovative in using home learning during lockdown via online tools such as Google Classroom and this will continue in supporting the blended model. We have ensured that children without home wi-fi access have received laptops and dongles so that they can also participate.

Our aim is always to ensure that no pupil is disadvantaged and that will continue to be the case.

Staff will carefully consider the aspects of curricular areas being taught to ensure physical distancing. This may lead to changes in the order of courses.

Staff will carefully consider their plans to ensure that in school learning doesnt put any child or young person at risk.

Colleagues are currently considering the implications of physical distancing measures on toilets and changing rooms.

All schools will develop a school specific plan which will be shared with parents and carers. Plans will include the rationale for decisions being taken.

Teachers will have a vital role in ensuring that schools are ready from day one of re-opening. This includes curriculum setting, setting lessons, agreeing how best to structure the blended approach and rotas.

There will also be a requirement for training given that we are in unprecedented circumstances with regard to teaching with physical distancing requirements.

Individual risk assessments will be completed to help us plan for children and young people with the most complex needs.

Given the delays to the ELC Expansion capital programme, and the need for physical distancing arrangements, we will not be in a position to deliver 1,140 hours this year. The Early Years team will be contacting families in the near future.

In the meantime, we still aim to maintain our statutory requirement to deliver 600 hours per year where possible.

We are currently reviewing our Emergency Childcare and Hub provision to attempt to continue to deliver a service which enables children to access their in school learning.

We are working closely with colleagues from across the Council and transport providers to explore restrictions fully.

We will advise families of any changes necessary as soon as we are clearer on the impact of physical distancing arrangements on transport.

Schools are currently using Local Authority guidance to deliver transition support. Individual schools will contact families if there are any changes to their transition programme.

In the first instance it is likely that children and young people in school over lunchtime will be asked to bring a packed lunch. Free school meal vouchers, which can be used at supermarkets, will continue to be provided.

The SQA have advised that they intend to run the exam diet next year. We will continue to be guided by SQA.

No. That is planned for later phases of the route map.

Park toilets are to remain closed to the public. Toilets will be open when it is safe to do so and in accordance with government guidance.

From 8am on May 29.

There are many benches across our green spaces and there are no current plans to stop the public using them subject to the public adhering to the national guidance on physical distancing.

These benches may be welcomed by some members of the public who require to rest during their walks, exercise etc

Yes. Along with grass cutting, the tree squad, mechanical street sweeping and manual litter picking, invasive weed spraying and the Countryside Rangers team are set to start back to work.

The public will be expected to respect physical distancing rules. All work starting back will be one-person operations i.e. ride on mowers, mechanical sweeping and litter picking.

Services and tasks have been risk assessed and changes have been made to depot layouts etc to ensure physical distancing and safety of staff as per government guidelines.

Grass cutting was not seen as a critical service and has been stood down for the last 10 weeks in the interests of public safety. Grass cutting and some grounds maintenance will begin on Monday morning at multiple locations with services being rolled out across the city over the course of the week. Parks, open spaces, cemeteries and road verges will take priority.

Our priority will be the areas that are being well used by the public for exercising and where we want to ensure accessible open spaces. We also want to ensure that our cemeteries are cut. The initial start back and the first cut will take much longer than usual. It may be that this year some areas cannot be cut.

We aim to start back with the house garden maintenance programme. We will look to undertake as many cuts as we can before the end of the season.

To manage travel demandand adherence to physical distancing,the Council is to roll out temporary measures for city streets to allow people to walk, cycle, and queue for buses and shopping.

Measures are being designed to support the NHS guidance on physical distancing and include pedestrianisation, pavement widening, temporary bike lanes, and one-way walking systems, andwork will start on installing measures in next few days.

No the Council will not be re-opening all of their buildings in phase 1. The process of re-opening buildings is under review to consider various issues including physical distancing, government guidance and the wellbeing of staff and customers.

There will inevitably be delays to the completion of construction works due to the pandemic.

We will not know the impact of the lockdown until our contractors are able to assess their works, the impact of the lockdown and the working constraints related to maintaining physical distancing to carry out work tasks.

Continue reading here:
What happens now Covid-19 lockdown restrictions have entered phase one? - Aberdeen Evening Express

Seminary Road and scooters: Those were the two topics that dominated many of Yon Lamberts conversations throughout 2019 and into early this year.

Lambert, director of Transportation and Environmental Services (T&ES) for the City of Alexandria, said that while those highly visible topics are important, decisions made about them are actually rooted in years of policy that envisions a city where residents can safely get around town in a variety of ways.

The one word that most captures what it is that were trying to provide people is choice, Lambert said from a City Hall conference room in late December. Our goal is to make sure we are providing people with a range of options for how to move around safely and efficiently.

2019 was a particularly investment-heavy year as Alexandria worked toward providing more transit choices to residents:

The City and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) broke ground on the new Potomac Yard Metro Station.

The Alexandria Transit Company (DASH) adopted the new Alexandria Transit Vision (ATV) Plan a complete reimagining of the local bus network that will create a more useful and equitable bus network that encourages more people to get to more places using transit, accord-ing to the ATV website.

Alexandria made significant progress on its SmartMobility plan, which is modernizing the way traffic and transit are managed.

Many residents say the investments are working: According to the 2018 National Citizen Survey Community Livability Report for Alexandria, For Mobility, respondentsscores for ease of travel by alternative modes (walk-ing, bicycle and public transit) were higher than in other communities nationwide.

That doesnt mean getting around Alexandria or anywhere in Northern Virginia is easy. Multiple studies, including reports from Inrix (a Washington-based firm that analyzes traffic problems) and the Texas Transportation Institute, have given Northern Virginia the unwanted title of having some of the worst traffic in the nation.

The question is what to do about it...

----------

Alexandria Living asked residents this winter about their biggest transportation concerns. Below is a sample of responses read all of them here.

If Alexandrias goal is to create a great place to live, it will have to improve the way city officials bring together transit professionals, boards and commission members, elected officials, designers, developers, and the public to solidify a shared vision. Rafael Lima

To improve Alexandrias transportation performance, travellanes must be maintained on major arteries and throughput must be prioritized over the idealistic implementation of a multi-modal transportation plan that simply isnt serving Alexandria best. Alexis Sargent

I would like to see the restoration of many streets recently roaddieted to four-lanes so we can have sound traffic flow to expedite travel through to 395, the Wilson Bridge and 495. Alleviating traffic congestion will go a long way to restoring quality of life for many Alexandrians now stuck in traffic, losing time they can never recoup. Fran Vogel

The city regularly complains they dont have enough trafficofficers to patrol. Speeds cameras would solved this instantly. Further, hands-free smartphone use should be the law everywhere in Virginia especially in the era of Waze. People with their noses in phones are a huge hazard for bikers, pedestrians and other motorists. Peter Turner

Read more opinions from Alexandria area residents here.

----------

THE ALEXANDRIA MOBILITY PLAN

As part of the overall efforts to increase safety and efficiency, City officials are working on a new Alexandria Mobility Plan, set to be released in 2020. The Alexandria Mobility Plan is an update to the Citys Transportation Master Plan, which was last fully updated in 2008.

First, some history: The City of Alexandrias 1993 Transportation Master Plan focused on roads and intersections that city officials wanted to build. By 2008, city officials incorporated plans for people who walk, bike and use transit, including the biggest idea to come from that plan the creation of transit corridors, Lambert said.

Since 2008, smart phones have saturated the market, Waze (a popular mobile app that recommends efficient routes and warns of traffic issues) launched, and Uber, Lyft and other ride-share services emerged. Dockless mobility primarily scooters, but also electric bikes and now, mopeds hit the streets, as well.

The new Alexandria Mobility Plan (alexandriava.gov/MobilityPlan) is designed to think about how people move with a nod to the effects of technology.

In a region thats rapidly urbanizing and facing no slowdown in growth, the only way to move around safely and efficiently moving forward is by finding more ways to help people get around, Lambert said. None of the transportation policies weve adopted as a City have said that we shouldnt let people drive through the City, so weve been making large-scale investments in transit to help all users of our streets make safe choices for commuting and daily errands.

MOVING SMARTER

With an eye toward technology, which could someday include driverless cars, Alexandria is moving forward its SmartMobility initiative.

Alexandria is committed to investment in transportation technologies that improve road safety and traffic management while preparing the City to take advantage of future transportation infrastructure advancements, such as self-driving cars and real-time traffic management, according to the Citys SmartMobility website at alexandriava.gov/SmartMobility.

The Citys investment in transit and transportation choices include massive capital projects such as broadband and IT infrastructure improvements, as well as SmartMobility.

SmartMobility involves implementing transportation technologies that improve road safety and traffic management while also readying the City to take advantage of future transportation advancements like self-driving cars and real-time traffic management.

What we want our signals to be able to do is adapt all the time to traffic conditions, but also to talk to each other so one traffic signal is not only telling another traffic signal to adjust when theres a lot of traffic, Lambert said, but also to adjust when theres a bus coming and there are a lot of people on that bus.

Thats already starting to happen: Alexandria is rolling out intelligent traffic signals that respond and adapt to real-time vehicle location and movement data, optimizing traffic flow, decreasing delays, and reducing stops at various intersections throughout the city. The new signals are equipped with technology to prioritize transit and emergency vehicles, allowing equipped vehicles to request preemption at intersections and bypass stopped vehicles or congestion, according to the Citys SmartMobility website.

Other technology already in place includes field devices such as traffic cameras and pavement sensors that can capture real-time data.

How we manage the flow of traffic is almost as important to managing congestion as adding lanes, Lambert said.

Of course, infrastructure (both physical and virtual) costs money. Theres a lot of money going into this program, almost entirely grant funded, Lambert said. The funding agencies recognize that particularly in urban areas, this is a really important part of safety and congestion mitigation.

And some residents have expressed concern about privacy. Some elements of smart streets programs use Bluetooth signals from drivers smartphones to measure traffic volume and speed.

Unlike an app, streets and parks cant require their users to check a dialog box consenting to how their personal information will be used before granting access. In public spaces where personal information is collected take video footage that records peoples faces in a crowd there is no easy way for people to opt out of giving their consent, wrote Alex Ryan of MaRS Solutions Lab in a QZ.com opinion piece last year.

The key is ensuring that companies providing these services are fully anonymizing data or you can shut your phone off while driving.

VISION ZERO

In 2017, Alexandria joined an increasing number of cities that adopted Vision Zero. Vision Zero is a strategy to eliminate all traffic fatalities and severe injuries, while increasing safe, healthy, equitable mobility for all.

First implemented in Sweden in the 1990s, Vision Zero has proved successful across Europe and now its gaining momentum in major American cities, according to the Vision Zero Network, a not-for-profit organization that promotes the strategy.

For too long, weve considered traffic deaths and severe injuries to be inevitable side effects of modern life. While often referred to as accidents, the reality is that we can prevent these tragedies by taking a proactive, preventative approach that prioritizes traffic safety as a public health issue, according to the organization.

To do that, Vision Zero calls for road systems and transportation policies minimize the errors in judgment people make while driving, biking or walking. This means lower speed limits, safer intersections and an educational component to make people aware of road changes and conditions, as well as safe practices.

Unfortunately, you cant engineer away stupidity.

Despite the Citys best efforts to improve safety, some people will make badchoices. Its all too common to see drivers who speed, tailgate, cross the center lineto avoid speed cushions, run red lights, or illegally pass speed-limit-abiding drivers; some bikers blow through intersections at high speeds, and some pedestrians jaywalk, adding to the chaos.

While the goal of eliminating traffic fatalities and several injuries is laudable, some of the methods used to move toward that goal can be controversial. This year, New York Citys Uniformed Firefighters Association officials said Vision Zero is increasing response times for emergency vehicles because of poor planning.

Here in Alexandria, there have been a number of questions and concerns from residents about both the slowdown in regular commutes and whether emergency response times are slower on Seminary Road near INOVAs Alexandria Hospital.

Through official channels, Alexandria Fire Department Chief Corey Smedley, who was acting chief during the Seminary Road debate, said there were no complaints from emergency responders and that all the fire departments concerns about the Seminary Road Diet have been addressed.

Alexandria is implementing several tools towardits Vision Zero goal. Those tools include Complete Streets, Road Diets, Leading Pedestrian Intervals(which give pedestrians a few seconds to start crossing before cars get a green light), speed limit reductions, no turn on red restrictions and more.

Frequently used in Alexandria: speed-awarenesssigns, which tell drivers when they are going too fast. Data from the U.S. Dept. of Transportation (USDOT) shows these signs are effective in reducing traffic speeds and increasing speed limit compliance, but they only work for a limited time before drivers start to ignore them. (In the 2020 Virginia legislation session, lawmakers are working on legislation that would allow ticket-generating speed cameras.)

WHAT IS THE COMPLETE STREETS PROGRAM?

Many residents have confused Complete Streets with Road Diets they are not the same, nor do they always go hand-in-hand.

Lambert described Complete Streets as a paradigm shift in how we think about roads.

Every time a road is scheduled for repaving in Alexandria, city officials and residents look at ways to make it safer and more usable for all types of commuters pedestrians, bikes, scooters and cars alike. While that may include a road diet in a few select cases,

There is no singular design prescription for Complete Streets; each one is unique and responds to its community context, according to Alexandrias Complete Streets website. A complete street may include: sidewalks, bike lanes, special bus lanes, comfortable and accessible public transportation stops, frequent and safe crossing opportunities, median is-lands, accessible pedestrian signals, curb extensions, narrower travel lanes, roundabouts and more. (Learn more about it at alexandriava.gov/CompleteStreets.)

In Alexandria, City officials have added stop signs and shared bike lanes have been implemented to create safer streets for pedestrians, bike commuters and vehicles. Residents are also noticing an increase in speed cushions, dedicated bike lanes, new sidewalks, bump outs and more.

WHAT IS A ROAD DIET?

Seminary Road was part of the Complete Streets program and one of the cases in Alexandria where officials determined the best course of action was a Road Diet.

A classic Road Diet typically involves converting an existing four-lane, undivided roadway segment to a three-lane segment consisting of two through lanes and a center, two-way left-turn lane, the USDOT explains. Thats exactly what was implemented on Seminary Road in 2019.

Done correctly, the USDOT reports that Road Diets can reduce crashes by 19 to 47 percent. Additional benefits may include slower traffic, safer usage by all road users and more. A key feature of a Road Diet is that it allows reclaimed space to be allocated for other uses, such as turn lanes, bus lanes, pedestrian refuge islands, bike lanes, sidewalks, bus shelters, parking or landscaping, according to the USDOT.

However, road diets must be implemented smartly. Simply narrowing vehicle lanes or reducing the number of vehicle lanes will not make a street safer. In fact, done incorrectly, road diets can make a road more dangerous.

While these projects are highly visible and affect a lot of drivers, they are not a huge area of financial investment for Alexandria compared to other transportation projects and priorities.

Still, Road Diets are not without controversy, asthe Seminary Road project has demonstrated: An increasing number of residents are joining a Seminary Road anti-diet Facebook group, citing concerns about continued speeding at some times of the day, traffic backups at other times, questioning whether emergency vehicles can respond to needs in a timely manner, and lamenting that bikers and walkers arent making enough use of their new facilities.

CUT-THROUGH TRAFFIC

Its convenient (and somewhat cathartic) to blame Maryland drivers for Alexandrias traffic woes, but it isnt entirely their fault.

Alexandrias own population has been increasingat a rate of about 1 percent per year since 2010,and that rate of growth is expected to continueor increase with the arrival of Amazon and other development, according to the Alexandria Mobility Plan Foundations Report.

Much of this growth will be in northeast Alexandria near Potomac Yard and Del Ray, along the Eisenhower Avenue corridor and in the northwest corner near the Mark Center. (The report is available through alexandriava.gov/MobilityPlan.)

In addition, commuter flow is largely into the City. 2017 data from the U.S. Census Bureau showed that on a typical day, 70,600 people commute into the City of Alexandria to work, and only 57,200 commute to other jurisdictions. Another 11,100 people both live and work in Alexandria.

Other studies have shown that during certain times of the day, more than 40 percent of traffic can be attributed to cut-through drivers.

Thus, in some ways, theres no avoiding traffic in Alexandria its just geographic reality, Lambert said. The City is surrounded by the Beltway, and I-395 goes right through it. Drivers from Maryland taking the Woodrow Wilson Bridge into Virginia often end up on Alexandria streets on their way to Arlington, the District, Fairfax County or the Mark Center.

Numerous residents have asked why Alexandria wont put no through traffic signs on secondary roads or limit access to certain roads by non-Alexandria residents through a permit program. (Until recently, it wasn't legal for Alexandria to do this, but that has changed and city staff will be considering this along with other measures.)

Other residents have suggested more aggressive measures, including physical barriers to prevent cut-through traffic from using certain residential streets.

We cant just cul-de-sac all the neighborhoods, Lambert said.

Lambert said Alexandria does have a handful of roads where traffic safety conditions warranted turn restrictions during certain hours. However, these regulations can make travel more difficult for residents of those neighborhoods.

A permit program like the one being researched nowcould help residents by allowing only certain people to turn onto selected streets, but regular, consistent enforcement would be a challenge and a potential strain on police resources.

While doing so would force cut-through traffic to use main roads, it could also have a serious negative affect on local residents, who would just get stuck in the traffic that results from funneling all cars onto arterial roadways.

With the advent of Waze and other traffic-avoidance apps, drivers would simply end up on other roads.

Really, these programs would just be shifting the problem from one road to another, not eliminating or reducing cut-through traffic overall, Lambert said.

Legally, courts have determined that Alexandria cannot simply ban Waze, as some residents have suggested doing.

So what is Alexandria doing about cut-through traffic?

Road design is part of the equation: By designing roads to accommodate local traffic and enhance safety for all users, highways and major arterial roads will look like a better, faster option for commuters.

The Virginia Dept. of Transportation is working additional information signs for Beltway and I-395 Drivers (such as those signs that say D.C. Line 9 miles, 10 minutes) that can encourage drivers to stay on the highways.

Smart Mobility in Alexandria will help improve signal timing to keep people moving on the arterials and provide data for traffic engineers to make well-informed decisions.

The Alexandria Transit Vision will help make public transit more efficient and a more attractive option. Plus, an increase inregional cooperation combined with more investments will make transit more efficient and effective for commuters, which may also help alleviate congestion.

Intelligent development will help, as well: Alexandria is increasingly focused on new developments that are walkable, mixed-use and live, work, play-focused, which can help reduce car trips.

Residents may also consider making adjustments when that's possible planning ahead to combine trips, running errands during off-peak hours, or adjusting work schedules or telecommuting.

And before getting in the car, as traffic reporter and locallegend Bob Marbourg used to say, Pack your patience.

Read the original here:
Reimaging Transportation in Alexandria - Alexandria Living Magazine

If you were toask a group of medical professionals to name the most significant public healthachievements of the past century, antibiotics and widespread vaccinationagainst infectious diseases would almost certainly top the list. The US Centers for Disease Control andPrevention2 (CDC) would add motor vehicle safety,fluoridated water, workplace safety, and a decrease in cigarette smoking.

If you were to saypesticides not only belonged on the list, but well toward the top of it, youwould likely be greeted with skepticism, if not incredulity. On this topic,highly educated professionals are little different from general consumers, whoget most of their information from media stories that overwhelmingly portraypesticides as a health threat or even a menace. At best, some open-minded interlocutorsmight concede that pesticides are a necessary evil that regulators should seekto limit and wherever possible, eliminate from our environment.

Yet by any ofthe standard measures of public health reductions in mortality, impairment,and infectious diseases, as well as improved quality of life the contributionof modern pesticides has been profound. An adequate supply of food is absolutelyfoundational to human health. Denied sufficient calories, vitamins, and othermicronutrients, the bodys systems break down. Fat stores are depleted and thebody begins to metabolize muscles and other organs to maintain the energynecessary for life. Cardiorespiratory and gastrointestinal functions falter andthe immune system is seriously compromised.

A 2019 report3 from the United Nations Childrens Fund (UNICEF) found thatone-third of children under age five are malnourished stunted, wasted oroverweight while two-thirds are at risk of malnutrition and hidden hungerbecause of the poor quality of their diets. And according to the World HealthOrganization1, undernutrition is currently an underlying cause in nearlyhalf of deaths in children under five years of age. Inadequately nourishednewborns who survive early childhood can suffer permanently stunted growth andlifelong cognitive impairment. Death results more often from undernutritionthan insect-borne killers like malaria, Lyme disease, Zika virus, dengue andyellow fever combined. In addition, it makes people more susceptible to suchinfectious diseases. Pesticides help to address all of these problems byincreasing the food supply, controlling the growth of harmful mycotoxins, andpreventing bites from mosquitoes, ticks, other disease-transferring insects,and rodents.

Food Securityis a Recent Phenomenon

The medicalcommunity knows all of the broad strokes above, at least in the abstract. Butliving in a time of unprecedented agricultural abundance, we often take forgranted the provision of adequate diets. We shouldnt.

As the economistRobert Fogel noted in a 2004 book,4 even in advanced, industrializednations, widespread food security is a relatively recent phenomenon. According toProfessor Fogel, per capita calorie consumption in mid-nineteenth century Britainbarely equaled what the World Bank would designate today as that in low incomenations. The availability of calories in early nineteenth century France would placeit today among the worlds most food insecure. It wasnt until well into the twentiethcentury that even the wealthiest nations reached the level of per capita calorieconsumption necessary to escape chronic undernutrition.

What made thatpossible was a rapid increase in farm productivity following World War II. Cropyields had been improving during the previous two centuries, to be sure, but ascan be seen in charts of historical yield trends,5 progress was slow and uneven. Thatchanged dramatically in the mid-1940s, when the gradually ascending yieldcurves suddenly turned sharply upward, climbing almost vertically to where theystand today.

Average wheat yieldsin Great Britain in 1942, which stood a mere thirty percent above their level acentury earlier, doubled by 1974. By the late 1990s, they had tripled comparedto 1942. Crops throughout Western Europe and the United States followed asimilar trajectory: slow growth or stagnation in the pre-WWII era, followed by rapidacceleration starting in the late 1940s. US corn yields per acre, which hadincreased only eighteen percent between 1900 and 1945, tripled in the next forty-fiveyears, and by 2014, had increased more than 460 percent.5

The EssentialRole of Pesticides

So, whatchanged to produce such dramatic improvements? The two factors most often citedare cheaper nitrogen fertilizers produced by the Haber-Bosch method of fixing nitrogen6 directly from the air, which came on line after 1910, and newhybrid crops created by Henry Wallace, which were first marketed in 1926 by hisseed company, Pioneer Hi-Bred Corn Company (later Dupont Pioneer and now Corteva Agriscience). Both innovations were rapidly adoptedby farmers in the first half of the nineteenth century the use of artificialnitrogen fertilizer by US farmers increased ten-fold7 between 1900 and 1944, and sixty-fivepercent8 were planting hybrid crops by 1945 buttheir use and development increased enormously in the post-war years.

Often ignored,however, was the post-WWII introduction of new, synthetic chemical pesticides thatdramatically reduced crop losses and made possible much of the yield growthstimulated by new fertilizers and seeds. Farmers had been using chemicalpesticides since the earliest days of agriculture, but up until the mid-1940s,these were largely simple chemical compounds containing sulfur and heavy metals.An example was copper sulfate, which organic farmers still rely on today due,ironically, to its high toxicity, indiscriminate pesticidal activity, andlong-lasting effects (i.e., persistence in the environment). Advances9 in organic (i.e., carbon-based) chemistry, however,provided farmers in the post-WWII era with a broad array of highly effectiveand increasingly targeted pesticides that have revolutionized agriculture.

According toone of the worlds leading experts in plant diseases, E.-C. Oerke of theUniversity of Bonn, these pesticides were responsible10 for nearly doubling crop harvests, from forty-two percentof the theoretical worldwide yield in 1965 to seventy percent by 1990. It hasbeen estimated11 by others that herbicides (which are a subset ofpesticides) alone boosted rice production in the United States by 160 percentand are responsible for a full sixty-two percent of the increase in US soybeanyield. Modern fungicides contributed11 somewhere between fifty and one hundred percent of theyield increases in most fruits and vegetables.

Yet even thesenumbers vastly understate the contribution of modern pesticides. As Professor Oerkeand others8 have pointed out, many of the critical attributes of moderncrop varieties that enable higher yields make modern crops more attractive topests; these include shorter stalks (which prevent damage from the elements butincrease competition from weeds), increased resistance to cold (which enablesearlier spring planting and double-cropping), higher crop density and increasedproduction of nutrients stimulated by synthetic fertilizers. Without theinnovation of new pesticides, much of the benefit of enhanced fertilizer useand even the survivability of new plant varieties that define agriculture todaywould be severely curtailed or even blocked.

The GreenRevolution

In the 1960s,rapid population growth worldwide raised alarms of mass starvation. Many of thefears were exaggerated, but the urgency was real. Over the next half century,world population doubled, with much of the increase taking place in poornations already chronically unable to feed their populations. That the worldaverted widespread famine is largely credited to one man: Norman Borlaug. Knownas the Father of the Green Revolution and the man who saved a billion lives,he received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 for his tireless efforts to exportthe benefits of agricultural technology to struggling farmers around the world.The effects were dramatic: New high-yielding, disease-resistant wheat hybridsBorlaug introduced in Mexico, Pakistan and India doubled yields within a matterof years and helped turn those nations into net exporters.

Borlaug was adamant12 throughout his life that the success of the GreenRevolution was only possible because of modern pesticides. In a speech hedelivered a year after receiving the Nobel Prize, he forcefully condemned12 the environmental movements vicious, hystericalpropaganda campaign against agricultural chemicals.4 Insisting thatchemical inputs were absolutely necessary to cope with,12he expressed alarm that legislation then being pushed in the US Congress to banpesticides would doom the world to starvation.

Starting in the1960s, led by dramatic gains in developing nations, global crop productionbegan an impressive13 ascent. Tufts University Professor Patrick Webb13 has calculated, In developing countries from 1965 to 1990,there was a 106 percent rise in grain output, which represented an increasefrom roughly 560 kilograms per capita to over 660 kilograms per capita. And accordingto the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the rapid rise infood production caused a reduction in world hunger which is defined as nothaving adequate caloric intake to meet minimum energy requirements by more than half14 between 1970 and 2014. Behind that single statistic arebillions of premature deaths averted, billions of lives rescued from chronicdisease and suffering, and whole communities and even nations saved from anendless cycle of underdevelopment and grinding poverty.

From a publichealth perspective, those achievements can hardly be overstated. Unfortunately,they are rarely stated at all these days.

Fear, Not Facts,Prevail

The discussionof pesticides today largely ignores the challenges inherent in producing foodat the necessary scale and focuses instead on inflated fears surrounding them, althoughthey are among the most rigorously tested and tightly regulated of any class ofproducts. The result is a growing political and public backlash that retardsthe innovation of new products, restricts, and even bans from the market perfectlysafe, effective, and established products.

The increasingmomentum toward expanding bans on pesticides in Europe has called into question the very viabilityof agriculture15 on that continent. An avalanche of lawsuits16 in the United States against pesticides (such as theherbicide glyphosate17) universally deemed safe by regulators could put ourcountry on a similar path. Meanwhile, international development agencies suchas the UNs Food and Agriculture Organization which once championed the GreenRevolution are pushing the worlds poorest farmers to adopt agroecological approachesthat prohibit modern pesticides (and other technologies and products) and areas much as fifty percent less productive.18 That is a prescriptionfor potentially deadly challenges to food security.

It would be onething if this broad-based attack on modern pesticides approved by regulators hadscientific merit, but the obsessive focus by politicians, activists, and media onthe perceived risks to consumers collapses under scientific scrutiny. In this, itclosely parallels the public health challenge presented by the anti-vaccinationmovement, which is led by many of the same environmental groups. A criticaldifference is that the anti-pesticide movement is supported by billions ofdollars of annual funding from wealthy non-profits, governments (largely in theEU), and a burgeoning organic agriculture/food industry that seeks to increase its market share19 by spreading false and misleading claims20 about conventional farming.

And unlikeanti-vaccination propaganda, the media reflexively repeats and amplifies theanti-pesticide message with little qualification. (If it bleeds, it leads.) Evenseemingly authoritative voices in the health community, such as the American Pediatrics Association,21 advise the public to eatorganic food, mistakenly assuming that organic farmers dont use pesticides (they do,22 lotsof them23) or perhaps believing that naturalpesticides made with heavy metals are somehow less toxic than synthetic ones.(The EU has considered banning copper sulfate24 due to its human and environmental risks, but has continuedto reauthorize it because organic farmers have no viable alternatives.)Ironically, many organicpesticides are considerably more damaging to the environment.25

One of the mostsuccessful examples of anti-pesticide propaganda is the annual Dirty Dozen list26produced by the US activistEnvironmental Working Group (which also spreads vaccine fears),27 highlighting fruits andvegetables that have the highest detectable pesticide residues. The ability ofmodern technology to detect substances measured in parts per billion or evenper trillion is extraordinary, but the infinitesimal residues found on food arealmost certainly too small to have any physiological effect and by anyreasonable measure, represent a negligible risk to consumers.

Pesticideregulatory tolerances (safety levels) are calculated28 by dividing the highest dose of a pesticide found to have nodetectable effect in laboratory animals by a safety margin of one hundred to onethousand,28 which sets a maximum exposure limit on the cumulative amount of residue fromall approved products meaning regulators consider the sum of currenttolerances while determining the tolerance level for a new product. For tradingpurposes, maximum residue limits (MRLs) are set based on safety levelsmultiplied by an additional safety margin. So even if MRLs are exceeded, thereis very low risk of any health effect.

For example,the European Food Safety Authority29 noted in its most recent annual monitoring report onpesticide residues (2017), that more than half (fifty-four percent) of 88,000 samplesin the European Union were free of detectable residues. In another forty-twopercent, residues found were within the legal limits (MRLs). Only about fourpercent exceeded these limits, which still were unlikely to pose a safety issuedue to their trace amounts and built-in safety margins.

Paradoxically, regulatorsdont apply such large, conservative safety factors to other, more toxicsubstances we consume safely in much larger quantities every day. Consider, forexample, the difference between drinking one or two cups of coffee and drinkingone hundred to one thousand cups all at once. Given that a lethal dose ofcaffeine is about ten grams30 and a cup can easily contain 150 milligrams, sixty-six cupsmight well be fatal. Similarly, the absurdist nature of the EnvironmentalWorking Groups claims is seen in the calculations31 of the impossible quantities one would have to consume in asingle day e.g., 1,190 servings of apples, 18,519 servings of blueberries,25,339 servings of carrots per the Alliance for Food and Farming justto reach the no effect level.

Similarly,discussions of cancer risks commonly fail to acknowledge that most of thefruits and vegetables that are part of a healthy diet naturally contain32 chemicals that are potential carcinogens at high enoughdoses. Many, such as caffeine and the alkaloids in tomatoes and potatoes, arenatural pesticides produced by the plants themselves for protection againstpredators. Dr. Bruce Ames, who invented the test still used today to identifypotential carcinogens, and his colleagues estimate33 that 99.99 percent of the pesticidal substances we consumeare such natural pesticides which, of course, we consume routinely andsafely.

DiseasePrevention

The role ofpesticides in protecting public health is broad, varied, and sometimesunobvious. For example, the addition of the pesticide chlorine to publicdrinking water kills harmful bacteria. Hospitals rely on pesticides calleddisinfectants to prevent the spread of bacteria and viruses, and fungicides inpaints and caulks prevent harmful molds, while herbicides control allergen-producingweeds such as ragweed and poison ivy. Rodenticides are used to control rodentsthat spread diseases such as bubonic plague and hantavirus, and there are over 100,00034 known diseases spread by mosquitoes, ticks and fleas, whichinfect more than a billion people35 and kill more than a million of them every year; thosediseases include malaria, Lyme disease, dengue fever, West Nile Virus, andZika.

Even as thenumbers of tick- and mosquito-borne infections in the United States have surged,34 the CDC warns34 that we are dangerously unprepared in large part becauseof opposition36 to state-of-the-art pesticides by well-funded environmentalorganizations and the organic food and natural products industries, and the public fears37 they arouse.

Finally,naturally occurring toxins called mycotoxins,38 produced by certain molds (fungi), can grow on avariety of different food crops, including cereals, nuts, spices, dried fruits,apples and coffee beans. The most concerning of them are genotoxic aflatoxins,which can cause acute poisoning in large doses. Crops frequently affected by aflatoxins38 include cereals (corn, sorghum, wheat and rice), oilseeds(soybean, peanut, sunflower and cottonseed), spices (chili peppers, blackpepper, coriander, turmeric and ginger) and tree nuts (pistachio, almond,walnut, coconut and Brazil nut). Pesticides are effective in controlling thegrowth of these and other mycotoxins.

Epilogue

Certainly, justas with pharmaceuticals and medical devices, pesticides need to be well-regulatedand monitored, especially for potential effects on certain segments of thepopulation, such as farmers, who have the most direct contact (but have lowerrates of cancer than the general population). (See here,39 here,40 here,41and here.42)

The control ofpests has come a long way. The toxicity1of modern pesticides has already dropped ninety-eight percent and the applicationrate1 is down ninety-fivepercent since the 1960s. I grew up in the era of Better Thingsfor Better Living Through Chemistry (DuPonts advertising slogan from 1935 to1982) and lived through the worst of the backlash toward chemicals spawned inlarge part by the publication of Rachel Carsons compelling but often dishonestbook Silent Spring. Now, chemicals are being complemented, and sometimessupplanted, by biotechnology, but thats beside the point; the net benefit ofpesticides, whether chemical or biological, is irrefutable.

Our greatestpublic health challenge today isnt chemicals; rather, it is theinstitutionalized ignorance and fear-mongering that threatens to undo some ofthe twentieth centurys greatest technological and humanitarian uses of them.

Henry I. Miller, M.S., M.D., a physician and molecular biologist, is a seniorfellow in healthcare at the Pacific Research Institute. He was formerly a researchassociate at the National Institutes of Health and the founding director of theUS Food and Drug Administrations Office of Biotechnology. Please follow him onTwitter at @henryimiller.

References

1. Phillips McDougall. Evolution of the crop protection industrysince 1960 [Internet]. Midlothian (GB): Phillips McDougall. 2018 Nov. Availablefrom: https://croplife.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Phillips-McDougall-Evolution-of-the-Crop-Protection-Industry-since-1960-FINAL.pdf

2. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Ten great public health achievements United States, 1900-1999 [Internet]. Washington, DC (US): CDC; 1999 Apr. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00056796.htm3. UNICEF. The state of the worlds children 2019. Children, food and nutrition: Growing well in a changing world [Internet]. New York, NY (US): UNICEF; 2019 Oct. Available from: https://www.unicef.org/reports/state-of-worlds-children-2019

4. FogelR. The Escape from Hunger and Premature Death, 17002100: Europe, America, andthe Third World. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press; 2004. Availablefrom: doi:10.1017/CBO9780511817649

5. RitchieH, Roser M. Crop yields [Internet]. Our World in Data, Oxford (UK), Universityof Oxford; 2019 Sep. Available from: https://ourworldindata.org/crop-yields

6. Briney A. Overview of the Haber-BoschProcess [Internet]. New York, NY (US): ThoughtCo.; [updated2019 April 10]. Available from: https://www.thoughtco.com/overview-of-the-haber-bosch-process-1434563

7. Parker FW. Use of nitrogen fertilizers. Yearbook of Agriculture. Washington, DC (US): US Department of Agriculture, 1944. 562 p. Available at: https://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/IND43893965/PDF8. Warren GF. Spectacular increases in crop yields in the United States in the twentieth century. Weed Technol [Internet]. 1998 Oct-Dec;12(4):752-760. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/39890999. SPEX CertiPrep Group. The evolution of chemical pesticides [Internet]. Pittsburgh, PA (US): Lab Reporter, Fischer Scientific; 2016(4). Available from: https://www.fishersci.com/us/en/scientific-products/publications/lab-reporter/2016/issue-4/the-evolution-chemical-pesticides.html10. Popp J, Pet K, Nagy J. Pesticide productivity and food security: A review. J Agron Sustain Dev [Internet]. 2013 Jan;33(1):243-255. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-012-0105-x

11. Gianessi L, Reigner N. The value of herbicidesin US crop production. Weed Technol 2007; 21(2), 559-566. Availablefrom: doi:10.1614/WT-06-130.1

12. Howe M. DDTs use backed by Nobel winner[Internet]. New York, NY (US): The New York Times; 1971 Nov 8. Availablefrom: https://www.nytimes.com/1971/11/09/archives/ddts-use-backed-by-nobel-winner-borlaug-denounces-efforts-to-ban.html

13. Webb P. More food, but not yet enough:20th century successes in agriculture growth and 21st century challenges. Boston,MA (US): Food Policy and Applied Nutrition Program, Tufts University; 2008 May.Available from: https://nutrition.tufts.edu/sites/default/files/fpan/Food_Webb_08_05_13.pdf

14. Roser M, Ritchie H. Hunger andundernourishment [Internet]. Our World in Data. Oxford (UK), University ofOxford; 2019 Sep. Available from: https://ourworldindata.org/hunger-and-undernourishment

15. European Crop Protection Association. Lowyield: Cumulative impact of hazard-based legislation on crop protectionproducts in Europe [Internet]. Brussels (BE): European Crop ProtectionAssociation; 2016 July. Available from: https://www.ecpa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/361315_CIA_report%2Bcover_corrected_digital.pdf

16. Scipioni J. Bayer now faces 11,200 lawsuits overRoundup cancer risk [Internet]. New York, NY (US): FOXBusiness; 2019 Feb 27.Available from: https://www.foxbusiness.com/industrials/bayer-now-faces-11200-lawsuits-over-roundup-cancer-risk

17. Schreiber K. Global regulatory andhealth research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer [Internet]. North Wales, PA (US): Genetic Literacy Project; 2019 Mar 26. Available from: https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2019/03/26/infographic-global-regulatory-and-health-research-agencies-on-whether-glyphosate-causes-cancer/

18. Stam C. Agroecology can feed Europepesticide-free in 2050, new study finds [Internet]. Brussels (BE): Eurativ; 2018 Sep 18 [updated: 2018Oct 15]. Available from: https://www.euractiv.com/section/agriculture-food/news/agroecology-can-feed-europe-pesticide-free-in-2050-new-study-finds/

19. Schroeder J, Chassy B, Tribe D, BrookesG, Kershen D. Organic marketing report. Academics Review: 2014 Apr. Availablefrom: http://academicsreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/AR_Organic-Marketing-Report_Print.pdf

20. Miller HI. The organic industry is lyingto you [Internet]. New York, NY (US): The Wall Street Journal; 2018Aug 5. Available from: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-organic-industry-is-lying-to-you-1533496699

21. State Point Media. Is it important to feedkids organic food? [Internet]. New York, NY (US): State Point Media; 2012. Available from: https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/news-features-and-safety-tips/Documents/Organic_Food_2012.pdf

22. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations,title 7, subtitle B, chapter I, subchapter M, part 205, subpart G [Internet].Washington, DC (US): National Organic Program; 2019 Oct 25. Available from: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=9874504b6f1025eb0e6b67cadf9d3b40&rgn=div6&view=text&node=7:3.1.1.9.32.7&idno=7

23. Organic Materials Review Institute. Downloadthe OMRI products list [Internet]. Eugene, OR (US): US National Organic Programstandards; 2019 Oct. Available from: https://www.omri.org/omri-lists/download

24.MustacichS. Is Copper Safe for Wine? [Internet]. New York, NY (US): Wine Spectator; 2018 Nov 29. Available from: https://www.winespectator.com/articles/is-copper-safe-for-wine

25. Clark M, Tilman D. Comparativeanalysis of environmental impacts of agricultural production systems, agriculturalinput efficiency, and food choice. EnvironRes [Internet]. 2017Jun;12(6). Available from: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa6cd5

26. Environmental Working Group. Dirty Dozen: EWG's 2019 shopper's guide to pesticides in produce2019 [Internet]. Washington, DC (US): Environmental Working Group; 2019. Availablefrom: https://www.ewg.org/foodnews/dirty-dozen.php

27. Environmental Working Group. Overloaded?New science, new insights about mercury and autism in children [Internet]. Washington,DC (US): Environmental Working Group; 2004 Dec 13. Available from: https://docplayer.net/90328544-Overloaded-overloaded-new-science-new-insights-about-mercury-and-autism-in-children-summary.html

28. Reeves WR, McGuire MK, Stokes M, ViciniJL. Assessing the Safety of Pesticides in Food: How Current Regulations ProtectHuman Health. Adv Nutr [Internet]. 2019;10(1):80-88. Available from:doi:10.1093/advances/nmy061

29. European Food Safety Authority. The 2017European Union report on pesticide residues in food. EFSA Journal [Internet].2019 June 26;17(6). Available from: https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5743

30.Murray A, Traylor J.Caffeine Toxicity. [Updated 2018 Nov 15]. StatPearls [Internet]. TreasureIsland, FL (US): StatPearls Publishing; 2019 Jan. Available from:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK532910/

31. Alliance for Foodand Farming. Safe fruitand veggie calculator [Internet]. Watsonville, CA (US): Alliance for Food andFarming: 2019. Available from: https://www.safefruitsandveggies.com/pesticide-residue-calculator/

32. Boobis A, Moretto A, Cohen S. WHOs IARCunder fire for ignoring exculpatory data on glyphosate: Should it be reformedor abolished? [Internet]. North Wales, PA (US): Genetic Literacy Project; 2017 June 16. Availablefrom: https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2017/06/16/whos-iarc-fire-ignoring-exculpatory-data-glyphosate-reformed-abolished/

33. Ames BN, Profet M, Gold LS. Dietarypesticides (99.99% all natural). Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A [Internet].1990 Oct;87(19):7777-7781. Available from: doi:10.1073/pnas.87.19.7777

34. Cherelus G. Tick, mosquito-borneinfections surge in United States: CDC [Internet]. New York, NY (US): Reuters;2018 May 1. Available from: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-health-insectillness/tick-mosquito-borne-infections-surge-in-united-states-cdc-idUSKBN1I2423

35. Omodior O, Luetke MC, Nelson EJ.Mosquito-borne infectious disease, risk-perceptions, and personal protectivebehavior among U.S. international travelers. Prev Med Rep [Internet].2018;12:336-342. Available from: doi:10.1016/j.pmedr.2018.10.018

36. Rea W, Napke E, Cummins J, Epstein S, GilkaL, Krimsky S et al. Beyond Pesticides. An open letter by Concerned Physiciansand Scientists to stop the indiscriminate friendly fire pesticide spraying[Internet]. Washington, DC (US): Beyond Pesticides; 2003 Nov 3. Available from:https://www.beyondpesticides.org/assets/media/documents/mosquito/documents/Open%20Letter.pdf

37. Staletovich J. Miami Beach doctor files lawsuit to stop mosquito spraying[Internet]. Miami, FL (US): The MiamiHerald; 2017 July 3. Available from: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/environment/article159506004.html

38. World Health Organization. Mycotoxins[Internet]. Geneva (CH): World Health Organization; 2018May 9. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/mycotoxins

39. Laakkonen A, Pukkala E. Cancer incidenceamong Finnish farmers, 1995-2005. Scand J Work EnvironHealth [Internet]. 2008;34(1):73-79. Available from: doi:10.5271/sjweh.1167

40. Depczynski J, Dobbins T, Armstrong B,Lower T. Comparison of cancer incidence in Australian farm residents 45 yearsand over, compared to rural non-farm and urban residents a data linkagestudy. BMC Cancer [Internet]. 2018 Jan;18(1):33. Available from: doi:10.1186/s12885-017-3912-2

41. Lerro CC, Koutros S, Andreotti G, Sandler DP, Lynch CF, Louis LM et al. Cancer incidence in theAgricultural Health Study after 20 years of follow-up. Cancer Causes Control[Internet]. 2019 Apr;30(4):311-322. Available from: doi:10.1007/s10552-019-01140-y

42. Frost G, Brown T, Harding AH. Mortalityand cancer incidence among British agricultural pesticide users. Occup Med [Internet].2011 Aug;61(5):303-310. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqr067

View post:
Is It Immoral To Oppose The Use Of Pesticides? - Science 2.0