Ebola: Death Toll Rises in West Africa

Since the CDC hasn't updated their website, I thought I'd provide you with the latest statistics relating to the Ebola outbreak, according to the WHO Regional Office for Africa. 

Cases = 1,711
Deaths = 932
Case fatality rate = 54%

This is madness!
Check in soon for more updates.

If you enjoyed this article, I encourage you to join my blog!  Simply click the “join this site” button at the top right of the page, log in using your Yahoo, Google, or Twitter account, and click “follow publicly.”  Thanks!!

Ebola Virus Outbreak: Background & News

          To those unaware, a deadly Ebola outbreak of historic proportions is ripping its way through West Africa as of this writing. Further history was made last Saturday when an American infected with Ebola virus was flown in an isolation chamber from Liberia to Atlanta’s Emory University Hospital to receive emergency treatment. This represented the first known Ebola patient to ever be treated on U.S. soil, something that has alarmed many Americans. This Tuesday, a second patient is due to arrive to the same hospital for treatment. In this blog, I will briefly outline the latest as it relates to this deadly Ebola outbreak. Additionally, I’ll provide insight as to what Ebola virus is and shed light on its background to help put the current situation in perspective. I am intending to follow and report on this outbreak periodically through a series of blogs. So stay tuned  for updates on the issue.

About Ebola Virus

          Endemic to Africa, Ebola virus disease, as it is technically referred, was first recognized in 1976 in the equatorial region of the continent. Though the reservoir of this virus is not entirely known, it is increasingly thought to reside in non-human primates and bats. Frighteningly, Ebola is about as virulent a disease as we see on this planet, with a case fatality rate of up to 90%. In other words, Ebola kills up to 9 out of 10 people infected, with the least deadly outbreaks still killing over 50% of those infected. To compare, the highest case fatality rates for avian flu are around 60%. The average for West Nile is about 25%. Cholera, though not a virus, kills roughly 0 – 10% of those infected, depending on the country.

          Ebola infection is characterized by sudden onset of fever, extreme weakness and muscle pain, as well as headache and sore throat. Not too dissimilar from the symptoms of common illnesses we’ve all experienced. Later symptoms, however, include diarrhea, vomiting, rash, and impaired function of the kidneys, liver and other organs. In some cases, internal and external bleeding can occur. The current state of knowledge on Ebola transmission is that the virus can be contracted from person-to-person, but that such transmission can only occur through direct contact with bodily fluids of an infected person. I will discuss more on this last point and the possibility of airborne transmission in my next blog.

Situation in West Africa

          Outbreaks of Ebola are not very uncommon, however, most outbreaks are usually confined to small villages, fizzle out quickly, and produce no more than 100-200 fatalities. Among the largest Ebola epidemics was the 1995 outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo, which resulted in 315 cases and 244 deaths. By comparison, the present outbreak has already resulted in 1,603 cases and 877 deaths, according to the World Health Organization. These numbers are staggering to say the least!  Furthermore, since the first cases originated in Guinea around Feb/March, the epidemic has not remained confined, nor has it faded away. Instead, it has crossed borders into neighboring Sierra Leone and Liberia, and most recently into non-neighboring Nigeria.

          The present issue is certainly raising concern among health and government officials around the world, particularly given the rapidity with which people in the modern day can move from country to country. The incubation period for Ebola can be up to 21 days, meaning an infected person can easily board a flight and travel to another country before ever presenting symptoms of the deadly virus. Additionally, there has been some talk about the possibility that this Ebola virus is of a strain that can be spread via airborne transmission. Were this true, it would of course warrant enormous concern to nations around the world, far surpassing both the SARS and H1N1 scares. Having spent extensive time studying air pollution and the transport mechanisms of airborne particles, I have my own thoughts on this possibility. However, I will reserve this discussion for Part 2 of this Ebola blog series. Note, depending on how often I post on this topic, I may not link all posts through Facebook, so be sure to "join" or tune into the blog directly for updates. In the meantime, let’s send our prayers to the people of West Africa and all others affected by this terrible epidemic. 

If you enjoyed this article, I encourage you to join my blog!  Simply click the “join this site” button at the top right of the page, log in using your Yahoo, Google, or Twitter account, and click “follow publicly.”  Thanks!!

How much paper does a tree produce?

     Answering this question is not easy because the answer depends on a number of variables, such as the density of the wood, the size of the tree, and the type of pulping process used. Recently, however, the Sierra Club published a response to such an inquiry, estimating that a single 8 inch diameter tree produces about 10,000 – 20,000 sheets of paper. Other numbers I’ve seen range as high as 100,000 sheets per tree. This may not sound like many trees necessary to meet consumption, but when you consider that the U.S. alone produced nearly 21 million tons of paper last year, this amounts to millions upon millions of trees. According to the American Forest & Paper Association, about 60% of the paper consumed in the U.S. is recovered  each year for recycling. Though this is good news, it leaves much room for improvement.

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle

     Every ton of paper recovered for recycling saves approximately 3.3 cubic yards of landfill space, 17 trees, 7,000 gallons of water, 380 gallons of oil, and 4,000 kilowatts of energy (enough to power the average U.S. home for six months!). That said, reducing paper consumption translates to a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions as well, thus lessening the impacts of climate change.

Not Simply for “Tree-Huggers”

     It is important to highlight that recycling is not simply a “tree-hugging”, “eco freak” measure to save the forests, but rather to protect human health as well. Paper mills are highly polluting operations around which many human populations reside. For every one ton reduction of paper consumed there is a corresponding reduction in air and water pollution. So reduce your paper consumption when you can, and recycle your used paper ALWAYS!

10 Tips to Reduce Paper Waste

1)    Copy on both sides of the paper.

2)    Adjust fonts, margins, and spacing to fit more text on a single sheet.

3)    Use lighter weight paper. Lighter paper requires less energy and fewer raw materials when it's manufactured.

4)    Reuse paper that has been printed on one side. It can be used as scratch paper or for printing internal memos.

5)    Use email and voice instead of hard prints when possible.

6)    Eliminate unnecessary subscriptions. Cancel newspapers, newsletters, and magazines you don't read or can access online, and take your name off mailing lists to reduce junk mail.

7)    Use electronic data storage instead of hard copy files.

8)    Use recycled-content, chlorine-free paper products, and use soy or other agri-based inks for printing projects.

9)    Place recycling bins near high-traffic areas such as conference rooms, kitchens, photocopy rooms, and fax areas in your office building.

10) Conduct a "paper" audit to determine the kind and volume of paper waste your company generates, then take steps to lessen such waste. 

If you enjoyed this article, I encourage you to join my blog!  Simply click the “join this site” button at the top right of the page, log in using your Yahoo, Google, or Twitter account, and click “follow publicly.”  Thanks!!

GMOs: What Are the Risks?

Part I

What Are GMOs?

            GMO stands for “genetically modified organism.”  In the context of food, GMOs are plants or animals whose genetic information has been modified, or genetically engineered, usually to produce a greater yield or increase processing efficiency.  In other words, to increase company profits and usually reduce consumer costs.  Unfortunately, however, with such biotechnology has come concern for human health and the environment.  In the United States in particular, whether you know it or not you’re consuming GMOs or products made with GMO ingredients on a daily basis (even a can of coke uses high-fructose corn syrup made from GM corn). The important question then is, what are the risks associated with GMOs, or put another away, can we trust Frankenfoods?  The news fortunately isn’t as bad as you might think and is in fact much different than most people suspect.  Note that in the interest of keeping things short, this will be a 2 part blog.  In this first blog (Part I) I’ll discuss plant GMOs while the topic of animal GMOs will be reserved for Part II. 

Issues with GM Crops

            A primary means of increasing crop yield through genetic engineering is by preventing damage by insects.  In fact, in the U.S. over 90% of our corn and soybean crops are genetically engineered for this purpose!  Such engineering is usually accomplished in one of two ways, either by engineering plants to be pest-resistant or engineering them to be pesticide resistant, or both.  The main issue with engineering a crop to be pest-resistant is the potential that the gene of interest may be an allergen to some individuals.  Further, there is the potential when imparting a pest-deterring protein into a crop that the gene itself will cause unforeseen toxicity to human health.  At present, there isn’t much scientific evidence that supports the existence of such effects.  While this doesn’t guarantee that these effects aren’t occurring, it at least doesn’t suggest reason to sound the alarm (the “not so bad” side of the story).  That said, some find the lack of scientific investigation into such effects coupled with the incredibly widespread use of GMOs to be reason for concern.  A valid perspective.

            While the above concern is no-doubt valid, what strike me as more disturbing are the implications of pesticide-resistant crops.  These crops are imparted with a gene that allows farmers to essentially spray the hell out of our food without worrying about damaging the plant. Sure, the plants are resistant to the pesticides and come out okay, but what about the people who eat them?  Crop yields go up, profits increase, but at whose expense?  Not the agricultural or pesticide industry, that’s for sure.  And let’s not forget about the ecologic effects of pesticides running into streams and lakes or the indirect human health effects of pesticide-contaminated drinking water and air. 

            Beyond the impacts described thus far is the concern of imparting antibiotic resistance genes into our food and ecosystem.  When desired genes are inserted into an organism, they are usually tagged with an antibiotic resistant gene.  This enables biotechnologists to test whether a plant has successfully incorporated the new gene by growing the plant in the presence of antibiotics.  If the plant grows, then the gene transfer was a success.  The concern that arises with this process is due to the possibility that bacteria in the environment as well as bacteria in the guts of humans and other animals will pick up this antibiotic resistance.  The prevalence of anti-biotic resistant bacteria has in fact increased quite dramatically in recent years, causing alarm among medical practitioners who are finding it increasingly difficult to treat certain bacterial illnesses.

Monsanto and GMOs

            Monsanto’s Roundup Ready™ seeds are probably the most heavily marketed pesticide-resistant crops on the market.  By no coincidence, Monsanto also owns the particular pesticide (Roundup™) these crops are resistant to.  So a farmer who purchases Roundup Ready™ seeds will also need to purchase Roundup™, both products of Monsanto.  And since the crops are resistant to Roundup™, a farmer will actually purchase even more pesticide than usual.  An all-too-beautiful system for the agricultural powerhouse. 

            Recently Monsanto, along with the largest food and beverage companies, broke a record.  By spending $22 million to oppose a Washington state bill that would require labeling on products containing GMOs, the group contributed the largest amount of money even spent on an initiative in the Washington state’s history!  Their money paid off as the bill was subsequently defeated.  Monsanto was the single largest company donor, spending $5.4 million on the opposition’s campaign. 

            Monsanto has gained an increasingly bad reputation with the public and smaller farming industry for not only their role in showering the nation with GMOs and pesticides, but also for their ever-increasing monopoly power and consequent ability to influence the political system relating to agriculture and food.  The spread of GMO crops has not only put many small farmers out of business, but Monsanto has successfully sued neighboring farms when their patented seeds have blow into nearby fields and sprouted “stolen” crops.  Monsanto seeds are also an issue for organic farmers whose fields are sometimes contaminated when GMO seeds blow into their farmland. 

The benefits of GM Crops

            Though this blog is intended to shed understanding on the risks associated with GMOs, it is at least worth noting some benefits of agricultural biotechnology.  Aside from pest protection, crops are often modified to express desirable nutrients.   In this way, genetic modification has positive potential in malnourished areas.  Sure, nourishing genes such as vitamin precursors are also of benefit in the developed world, but their importance is truly secondary to that of nutrient enrichment in the developing world.  A well known innovation exemplifying this is Golden Rice.  Globally, up to 500,000 children go blind each year as a result of vitamin-A deficiency.  This is mostly in impoverished regions of East Asia and Africa where cheap vitamin-A deficient foods such as white rice constitute an immense portion of the native diet (vitamin-A is an essential micronutrient in the development and maintenance of vision).  Golden Rice, however, is a form of rice that is specifically engineered to express beta-carotene (the vitamin-A precursor).   Though Golden Rice is still undergoing research and testing, and therefore has yet to hit the market as a commercial product, if it were to be substituted for ordinary rice in rice-dependent regions of the world where blindness is rampant, the positive impacts could be tremendous.  This certainly represents utility for biotechnological innovation.

           

Closing Thoughts

            Though GMOs have been approved for consumption and use as ingredients in food products throughout the U.S. and other nations, some food companies have taken it upon themselves to omit their use.  Just last year ice cream maker Ben & Jerry's pledged that it would strike GMO ingredients from its products.  Additionally, restaurant chain Chipotle said it would phase out GMOs this year. Whole Foods has pledged to label all products in its stores with genetically engineered ingredients by 2018.  And just recently, even General Mills pledged to avoid GMO grain and other ingredients from its classic Cheerios cereal beginning 2014, undoubtedly representing the largest win for those opposing GMOs. 

            In general, agriculture is a multi-billion dollar a year industry.  And like any industry, the goal is to maximize profits.  Particularly in the United States, the immense size of the agricultural industry is only matched by its lobby power and influence over food regulations. Consequently, different biotechnologies are rushed through the approval process each year in the U.S., the burden of protection falling on government agencies to later prove toxicity rather than on industry to preemptively prove safety.  Where in the world is quality control and consumer protection?  In the short time frame in which new chemicals and technologies are studied prior to hitting the market, it is virtually impossible to ensure safety.  Only acute human toxicity can be assessed, while cancer and other long term consequences are left unknown. 

The human body is an extremely complex system, becoming only more complex with the introduction of foreign chemicals.  It may very well be that most GMOs are perfectly safe.  And by and large, they probably are.  However, their indirect consequences should not be overlooked and their direct consequences should receive more thorough investigation, particularly considering that GMOs and pesticide-laden food products are reaching nearly every household in the world and being consumed on a daily basis.  When exposure is so widespread, even the most seemingly benign exposures can translate to astronomical risks.  This is in fact plainly visible in the very equation that calculates risk (Risk = Toxicity x Exposure).  For this reason, it seems prudent to employ greater regulatory caution and dampen the adoption of GMOs and pesticides in the marketplace.  

In countries of rampant malnutrition, the unknown risks posed by GMOs are almost certainly outweighed by their benefits.  However, in other countries such as the United States, GMOs represent nothing more than increased processing efficiency, higher profits, and monopolization for companies that are able to engineer and patent their own crop genes.  This is best exemplified by Monsanto, which essentially owns soy beans in the U.S. now and controls most U.S. corn production.  European countries have already taken initiative by rejecting a number of GMOs and chemicals that haven’t been investigated thoroughly for safety.  What’s more, chemicals that Europe has approved have only been allowed after mandatory proof of safety by industry.  This is in accordance with Europe’s newest REACH legislation, which takes a much more precautionary approach to public health and safety than America’s TSCA regulations.  It is time the U.S. steps up now and puts public health ahead of private interests. 

If you enjoyed this article, I encourage you to join my blog!  Simply click the “join this site” button at the top right of the page, log in using your Yahoo, Google, or Twitter account, and click “follow publicly.”  Thanks!!

                                                                                                -Shahir Masri, MS

Thanksgiving: 10 Tips for a Healthier Feast

This season, give thanks with a healthier and more eco-friendly dinner!!  Remember, you vote with your dollar every time you make a purchase at the market.  So vote for a cleaner and healthier future by supporting products made with fewer pesticides and less processing!

This Thanksgiving:

1. Eat Locally - Try an organic or locally raised turkey, or perhaps even a climate-smart center piece such as a stuffed winter squash!
2. Avoid BpA Exposure - Canned green beans and cranberries are both high in pesticide residues and, because of their canned storage, are also high in BPA (an endocrine disrupting chemical). Try using the fresh and organic forms of these ingredients. Maybe it’s a good opportunity to improve your cooking skills too!
3. Minimize the Fat - Some experts estimate that the average person consumes the equivalent of 3 sticks of butter at the Thanksgiving table. Use heart-healthy and GMO-free oils if you can.
4. Avoid Pesticides - Substitute white mashed potatoes, which are high in pesticides, with that made from sweet potatoes (low in pesticides). 
5. Avoid Pesticides - Replace high pesticide stuffing ingredients such as celery and carrots with their organic substitutes. 
6. Waste Less – While it might be tempting to use disposable plates and cutlery when hosting for a large group of people, this amounts to much wasted production energy, excess garbage to our landfills, and air pollution (from waste incineration).  Using glass/china plates, glasses, and regular silverware is much more environmentally sound.  If you choose to wash your dishes by hand, using lower temperature faucet water is even more eco-friendly!
7. Recycle- Don’t forget to recycle the items used to make your Thanksgiving meal, such as aluminum foil, metal cans, cardboard egg cartons, food boxes, glass/plastic bottles, jars, etc.
8. Use Tap Water - Serve your guests tap water.  Bottled water creates mountains of plastic waste and is actually no healthier than tap water in the U.S.  In fact, studies have shown bottled water to have a higher bacteria count than tap!
9. Save Leftovers - Sadly, the average American wastes roughly $600 of food annually.  This Thanksgiving, be sure to send leftovers home with your guests if you can’t finish them singlehandedly.
10. Store Smart - Package your leftover food in reusable containers as opposed to tin/aluminum foil and plastic wrap.

Be sure to share these tips with family and friends! And remember, where YOU cut down on waste and energy demand, you enable a future world in which your children and your children’s children can enjoy the same quality of life and opportunity for a healthy environment that you’ve enjoyed!  

For information on where to purchase locally grown produce, visit:

http://www.localharvest.org/

For information on where to purchase antibiotic-free meat, visit:

http://www.realtimefarms.com/fixantibiotics

For information on the carbon footprint associated with various food products, visit:

http://www.ewg.org/meateatersguide/eat-smart/

Have a Happy Thanksgiving!!!

If you enjoyed this article, please join my blog!  Simply click the “join this site” button to the right, log in using your Yahoo, Google, or Twitter account, and click “follow publicly.”  Thanks!!

           

                                                                                                -Shahir Masri, MS

Air Pollution: Announced to be Cancerous

    Just yesterday morning the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) announced the classification of outdoor air pollution as a Group 1 human carcinogen.  A specialized cancer agency of the World Health Organization, the IARC is the leading authority on the carcinogenicity of environmental chemicals.  After a thorough review of what has amounted to decades of air pollution research and epidemiology, the IARC has officially concluded that there is “sufficient evidence that exposure to outdoor air pollution causes lung cancer.”  The group also noted a relationship between air pollution and an increased risk of bladder cancer. 

      For a long time, air pollution as been known to increase the risk of respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, however, its association with cancer is something that has taken longer for scientists to demonstrate.  The most recent science, however, indicates that in 2010 there were over 220,000 lung cancer deaths globally as a result of air pollution.  By officially assigning outdoor air pollution to the Group 1 cancer category (reserved only for chemicals in which sufficient causal evidence exists), the IARC is shining a much needed light on the importance of air pollution exposure.  While in the developed world air quality is by no means a vestige of the past, this issue is of particular importance in developing nations, where dirty industries complimented by burgeoning automobile fleets are causing major air quality problems.  One can only hope that with this new categorization by the IARC, countries will take special notice and tailor their domestic policies so as to minimize dirty emissions to our atmosphere.  To read the full press release by IARC, visit http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/pr221_E.pdf

If you enjoyed this article, I encourage you to join my blog!  Simply click the “join this site” button at the top right of the page, log in using your Yahoo, Google, or Twitter account, and click “follow publicly.”  Thanks!!

                                                                                                -Shahir Masri, MS

The Impacts of Marine Plastics

Overview

            Ocean contamination by plastic pollution is a growing problem worldwide.  Since plastics don’t biodegrade, they persist and accumulate in large ocean gyres (rotating ocean currents).  As many of these plastics float near the surface, they are often mistaken for food by birds and fish.  Plastic ingestion can lead to choking, starvation, and drowning of marine species as well as introduce organic toxicants into the food chain. The bioaccumulation of toxic pollutants in fish and other marine species through plastic ingestion also has indirect implications for public health due to our consumption of these species.  In this blog, I’ll highlight the main points surrounding plastic pollution in the hopes that by increasing awareness we can collectively begin to curb our use of plastic and improve public health and the environment.  

Lifecycle of Plastic Pollution

       Plastics that don’t reach the landfill are often swept to nearby ditches and streams by wind and rain, at which point they are carried to the ocean.  Once in the ocean, plastics then enter large-scale rotating currents called ocean gyres.  Due to the convergence of surface water, these gyres effectively concentrate plastics and other floating debris, earning the name “garbage patches” as with our very own Pacific Garbage Patch off the coast of California.  Plastic polymers do not undergo biodegradation, but rather photodegradation, meaning instead of being metabolized and transformed by living organisms they are simply divided into small particles by the effects of sunlight.  Plastics therefore persist and accumulate indefinitely in ocean gyres and in the environment in general.

Relevance to Public Health and the Environment

       Due to their hydrophobic properties, plastics readily attract PCBs, DDT, and other harmful pollutants.  Consequently, floating plastics essentially become toxic pills.  By way of ingestion, these plastic particles, or pills, introduce toxicants into the marine food chain, becoming concentrated in fish and other marine species over time.  The smallest plastic fragments have both the highest proportion of contaminants as well as the greatest likelihood of being ingested by marine animals.  It is through human consumption of these animals that plastics pose an indirect threat to public health.  Many of the contaminants that bind to plastics are the same chemicals I’ve discussed in earlier blogs such as phthalates and pesticides, associated with hormone disruption, cancer, organ disruption, etc. (See Pesticides in Food and Toxic Water Bottles).  In addition to human health effects, bottle caps, lighters, and other plastic debris are often ingested by marine birds and fish, preventing their migration and reproduction as well as causing choking and starvation.  Plastics also entangle marine species, leading to restricted growth and suffocation.  Lastly, and perhaps least obvious, buoyant plastics when aided by currents can serve as vehicles for introducing foreign and destructive species to new habitats.  

     

Plastic Facts

• The average American throws away about 186 pounds of plastic per year.
• The plastic-to-plankton ratio is over 6:1 in some regions of the Pacific Ocean!!
• Nearly every plastic created that hasn’t been incinerated still exists somewhere in the environment
• Over 8 million tons of plastic are washed into the oceans from the land each year
• Studies show that 100% of certain marine bird chick carcasses and regurgitated food boluses contain plastic

Do Your Part to Help!

• Avoid purchasing/using plastic products such as single-use plastic water bottles and grocery bags, plastic substitutes usually exist (e.g. stainless steel bottles and reusable bags).
• Recycle your plastic products and encourage others to do the same.
• Avoiding purchasing excessively packaged goods and choose products packaged in recycled material when possible
• Avoid littering and pick up litter when you see it
• Put pressure on government officials to address the issue of marine plastics in the ocean

For more details and info on the issue of marine plastic contamination, visit

http://www.algalita.org/index.php

If you enjoyed this article, please join my blog!  Simply click the “join this site” button to the right, log in using your Yahoo, Google, or Twitter account, and click “follow publicly.”  Thanks!!

           

                                                                                                -Shahir Masri, MS