Google, Microsoft, and Amazon have long touted the need to reduce the use of fossil fuels. These tech companies, along with their bought-and-paid-for neo-liberal politicians, led many of us to believe that big tech’s AI is the hero we need to save us from climate disaster.
Times have changed. Shareholders want more. The Wall Street Journal and Gizmodo have reported that these three companies are deeply invested with the fossil fuel industry, attempting “to help them squeeze as much oil and gas out of the ground as possible,” and they’re using artificial intelligence to do that.
Remember when Google got too big and too pragmatic for that silly “Don’t be evil” phrase for their code of conduct?
In 2018, the oil and gas industries spent an estimated $1.75 billion on AI — a sum that is projected to balloon to $4 billion by 2025. To get their piece of that pie, big tech companies are developing AI for oil companies, even as they publicly celebrate their sustainable initiatives.
The health, food, and education systems in the United States are failing young people. According to a new study from JAMA Pediatrics, an estimated 18 percent of adolescents aged 12 to 18 are prediabetic, while 24 percent of young adults aged 19-34 were estimated to be prediabetic. Young people with obesity were more likely to be prediabetic. That’s not great news for Americans, as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development predicts that 47% of the United States population will be obese by 2030.
A Big Bundle
Diabetes is a serious yet manageable health condition that costs the United States healthcare system an estimated 327 billion dollars in the year 2017. According to Dr. Linda J. Andes, a mathematical statistician with the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and one of the lead authors of this study,
The average medical expenditures for people with diagnosed diabetes were about $16,752 per year. After adjusting for age group and sex, average medical expenditures among people with diagnosed diabetes were about 2.3 times higher than expenditures for people without diabetes…”
This study should be greeted with a call for greater education and awareness. Dr, Andes continues…
We hope that this research expands the pool of available research on prediabetes in adolescents and young adults. Monitoring the number of young adults and adolescents with prediabetes and varying levels of glucose tolerance can help determine the future risk of type 2 diabetes in youth. We also hope that this news sounds an alarm for young people, parents and clinicians – and that those who may be at risk or living with prediabetes are encouraged to take the necessary steps needed to prevent or delay progression to type 2 diabetes.
Instead, this news will likely be greeted with a chorus of “get your ass off the couch and eat better.” Unfortunately, that outdated and patronizing advice ignores the difficulties faced by young people today. Food that isn’t sprayed with large amounts of agricultural chemicals, chosen for its shelf life rather than taste, and processed in a way that kills the little nutrition not bred out of it comes at a premium. If you want good quality, tasty food, you’re going to have to pay for it.
There’s also the issue of nutrition education. Nutrition science is always evolving as science is better able to measure more and more variables in food. But that still doesn’t mean consumers will be getting all of that info. Coca-Cola finances in-house research institutes like the “Beverage Institute for Health and Wellness,” designed to promote the hydration benefits of their products while conveniently ignoring the health damage caused by sugary drinks. Nutrition and dietetics conferences are frequently sponsored by corporations with a vested interest in the least healthy option, like McDonald’s, Hershey’s, and Kraft Foods. This year’s Food and Nutrition Conference Expo’s sponsors included PepsiCo, Big G Cereals (the manufacturer of Lucky Charms, Cinnamon Toast Crunch, and Cocoa Puffs), and SPLENDA® Sweeteners. This is not to say all studies have been bought, but it is difficult, sometimes confusing, and incredibly time-consuming to sift through all the noise and find truly helpful health information.
This doesn’t even touch on the issue of the weight fluctuations that can occur with prescription medication, especially antidepressants and mood stabilizers. Even if you have the education needed to chose well and can afford quality food, you’re still at a massive disadvantage. Studies have found that the offspring of generations of mice fed a poor, low-fiber diet lose a high percentage of gut bacteria diversity, and they are unable to get it back. Though human studies haven’t been conducted, it’s not a stretch to think the same phenomenon is happening in people. At the end of all of this, the most basic act of care-taking we can perform (eating) can feel like yet another part-time job. No wonder more Americans are dying sooner.
The Bad Snowball
It’s highly likely that some of those prediabetic twelve-year-olds who have been diagnosed with prediabetes are being raised by some of those 34-year-olds with the same condition, or its next evolution stage, diabetes. The percentages of young people diagnosed with prediabetes are lower than the nearly 34 percent of Americans adults with prediabetes. Children and young adults may catch up sooner than expected, especially if the American way of life, eating, and addressing health continues the path it is currently on.
Two Alcoholic Drinks a Day Are No Longer Safe, Says Australian Health Officials
Alcohol guidelines in Australia have been updated for the first time since 2009, and it’s no longer considered safe to drink 2 standard alcoholic drinks a day. Telling adults how much alcohol to drink or not drink has the potential to blow up in your face, but the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC, the Australian equivalent of the U.S.’s National Institutes of Health) has ruled that reducing alcohol intake from 2 to 1.4 drinks a day can decrease instances of alcohol-related harm and improve quality of life. Anne Kelso, the chief executive of the NHMRC, observes…
We’re providing advice about the health risks from drinking alcohol so that we can all make informed decisions in our daily lives – for ourselves and for our children,” she said.
It’s 10 years since our last review of the guidelines and we now know more about the effects of alcohol. We know that alcohol continues to have significant direct health consequences for many Australians.”
Too High
A standard drink in Australia is 10 grams of alcohol (roughly .35 ounces). A bottle of wine contains 7 standard drinks, and under the previously recommended Australian guidelines, one could drink safely drink two bottles of wine a week. A Danish study from 2008 suggested that people drinking that much wine were less likely to die from cardiovascular disease than those who did not drink at all. The study also measured participants’ levels of physical activity, cautioning that the benefits of alcohol were best achieved with regular exercise.
More recent research contradicts those findings, though. Britain lowered it’s recommended safe levels of alcohol in 2016 to the equivalent of seven glasses of wine a week. Two years later, a Cambridge University study found that more than five glasses of wine was dangerous. The 2018 study linked drinking 10 or more drinks a week to reduced life expectancy, a higher risk of stroke, heart failure, fatal aneurysms, and fatal hypertensive disease.
Can’t Come Down
No one disagrees with the toxicity of alcohol in large quantities. But as a species, we like alcohol. We like the way it makes us feel. There is a long, storied history between humans and alcohol. But we also have trouble knowing when we’ve had too much. Is the Australian government babying their public? Or is reducing the recommended daily amount of alcoholic drinks from 2 to 1.4 enough to combat the negative effects of alcohol?
The French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety has taken away the marketing licenses for 36 glyphosate-based products. The products will no longer be available for purchase in France, which accounts for almost three-quarters of glyphosate products sold in France. Several Roundup products are included on the list, another blow to pharmaceutical giant Bayer. France is not the only country to ban glyphosate-based products recently, as there is increasing scrutiny on the herbicide worldwide.
Bayer Problems
Since Bayer acquired Monsanto in June 2018, public questioning of glyphosate has drastically increased. The company has been on the losing side of three major decisions in the U.S., with the initial payout amounts totaling more than 2 billion USD (the awards would later be reduced by judges).
Increasing Bans
France is the European Union’s largest producer of cereals, poultry, beef, and wine. Losing a large portion of business from French farmers is not ideal for Bayer, but bans or restrictions on glyphosate are becoming a more common occurrence. The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), a group of nations in the Middle East consisting of Bahrain, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), has banned the chemical completely since last year. Austria is the first European country to approve a total ban of glyphosate while Germany has announced plans for total bans in the future. Several smaller municipalities around the world have enacted restrictions on public and non-commercial use of glyphosate.
The United States is not included in the number of countries planning to limit glyphosate usage. Quite the opposite, actually. When the government of Thailand announced plans to ban glyphosate on December 1st, U.S. officials warned that the regulations would interfere with grain trade, as U.S. crops are heavily sprayed with that herbicide. Once again, the U.S. government puts profit over citizen health, even over those in other nations.
Air Pollution Linked to Higher Number of Hospitalizations for Blood, Skin, and Kidney Conditions
Scientists all over the world are becoming increasingly aware of the damage air pollution does to human health, and a new study from researchers at Harvard has found a link between airborne fine particulate matter and increased hospitalizations for common blood, skin, and kidney conditions. Researchers saw higher instances of hospitalizations for septicemia, urinary tract infections, kidney failure, skin and other tissue infections, and electrolyte disorders. The biggest culprit here is PM2.5, extremely fine particulate matter generated by fossil fuel combustion, power plants, airplanes, wildfires, and other combustion reactions. The study also determined that a little goes a long way. Scientists saw hospitalization numbers rise, even with short-term exposure and at PM2.5 levels lower than current World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines.
PM2.5 is defined as particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter. The smallest particles visible to the human eye are 50 micrometers, and at 2.5 micrometers, these particular particulates are smaller than pollen, plant, or mold spores. Due to their tiny size, these particles bypass the nose and throat, settling in the lungs or even circulatory system. Long-term exposure to PM2.5 can result in heart disease, stroke, asthma, and chronic kidney disease, among other conditions.
Air Conditions
American air quality is greatly improved over the last twenty years. PM2.5 levels, in particular, have dropped 39 percent since 2000. That will likely change, as the Trump administration continues to undermine the Clean Air Act. Recent attempts have moved to disregard methane emissions from power plants, rollback mandates that require states to minimize smog production, and challenge zero-emissions vehicle standards in California. This study and countless others have made the case that this will not be good for our health.
According to the WHO, 7 million people die each year from conditions caused or exacerbated by fine particle matter in the air. The United States has remained relatively unscathed, but if air quality standards are relaxed, that could change very quickly.
Four out of Five Samples of Walmart Pork Contained Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria
In a recent report released by World Animal Protection (WAP) entitled U.S. Pork and the Superbug Crises, 80 percent of the samples tested from Walmart Stores in the Mid-Atlantic region contained bacteria resistant to at least one antibiotic. On the samples that tested positive for antibiotic-resistant (AR) bacteria, 37 percent exhibited resistance to at least three classes of antibiotics. More than a quarter of AR bacteria found on Walmart pork was resistant to Highest Priority Critically Important Antimicrobials (HPCIA), the treatments the World Health Organization (WHO) has determined to be the most essential for human medicine. WAP concludes their report…
This retail pork testing revealed the presence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria on pork products. The findings complement strong existing research on how excessive antibiotics use on farms is creating the conditions for superbugs to thrive, and the opportunities for transmission to the food chain.”
Sad Walmart
Researchers began with a total of 160 pork samples, 80 of them purchased from a number of different Mid-Atlantic Walmart locations and 80 from a competing national retailer. After dividing samples into 32 batches and testing them at a Texas Tech University Laboratory, they found Enterococcus in 27 batches, E. coli in 14 batches, Salmonella in six batches, and Listeria in four batches. 41 of those 51 bacteria were resistant to at least one class of a medically important antibiotic. 21 were multi-drug resistant (resistant to three or more classes), and three bacteria were resistant to six classes of antibiotics.
Samples of Walmart pork were more likely to test positive for two or more bacteria in a batch than the other national retailer. All of the batches that had three or more bacteria were obtained from Walmart. All of the seven strains of bacteria displaying resistance to the WHO’s highest priority antimicrobials were found on Walmart pork samples. We reached out to Walmart in regards to this report. According to Blair Cromwell, a senior manager for Global Responsibility Communications at Walmart’s Corporate Affairs,
We don’t agree with their findings. To my knowledge, we really don’t have a record of them reaching out to us.
The company also released an official statement in regards to their Swine Assurance Program.
“Walmart and Sam’s Club are committed to providing our customers with access to safe, affordable, and sustainable food as well as promoting the humane treatment of animals. We only accept fresh pork from animals raised under the standards of the National Pork Board’s (NPB’s) Pork Quality Assurance (PQA) Plus Program.
We value our relationships with US pork producers who are dedicated to providing the highest in quality and safety through practices that promote animal well-being. Our priority is to advance humane treatment of farm animals in accordance with 5 Freedoms of Animal Welfare.
The goal of our Swine Assurance Program is to build more transparency and confidence in the fresh pork supply chain, and in the pork industry overall, through our tracking and audit program. We can report that by the end of 2018, based on supplier reports, 100% of our fresh pork suppliers have implemented video monitoring in a manner that is estimated to cover the volume supplied to Walmart U.S.
Additionally, as the world’s largest grocer, we are committed to playing a leading role in upholding food safety laws and regulations applicable to our global businesses, and to providing access to safe, high-quality foods. To reduce food-safety-related risk in our supply chain, we require all private-brand suppliers and select categories of national-brand suppliers to achieve certification to one of the Global Food Safety Initiative’s internationally recognized food safety standards, which often exceed applicable regulatory requirements.
Through regular independent, third-party food safety audits of our stores and clubs that prepare fresh food, we assess adherence to Walmart food safety standards, processes, conditions and expected behaviors. These risk-based audits help us receive independent assurances that our stores are operating in a safe and legal manner. In FY2019, we conducted more than 140,000 independent food safety audits at our stores and clubs globally.
Sad Hogs
Pigs destined for the American supermarket are not treated well. Sows spend their frequent pregnancies confined to small gestation crates, piglets often have their tails docked, ears notched, and teeth removed without anesthesia, and unsanitary living conditions leave factory-farmed pigs susceptible to a wide range of infections. These are among the reasons that factory-farmed pigs in the U.S. are given almost as many antibiotics as people (27.1 percent for pigs, 27.6 for people). The 75 million factory-farmed pigs consume the same amount of antibiotics as 375 million people.
This is not a new problem. Sulfonamides, the first effective antimicrobials, were introduced in 1937, and resistance to that treatment was reported before the end of that same decade. This problem has been happening since the beginning of antimicrobials. Yet here we are, repeating the same process over again.
Depending on your sources, 70 to more than 80 percent of antibiotics sold in the U.S. are destined for food animals. The flagrant use of these drugs has been a huge factor in the development of AR bacteria and the resulting health crises the world faces. If something doesn’t change, these microbes will kill an additional 10 million people a year by 2050. We are perilously close to being out of time.
New Study Shows Gut Bacteria May Alter the Aging Process
A recent study done by an international research team led by Nanyang Technological University in Singapore finds that microorganisms in the gut may alter the aging process. With research like this, the goal is to eventually be leading to food-based treatment to slow it down. Over the last 20 years research has already shown the important role the microbial species are playing in our nutrition, physiology, metabolism, and behavior. The study was conducted using mice. The medical team transplanted gut microbes from 24-month-old mice to germ-free 6-week old mice. After just 8 weeks the young mice showed production of neurogenesis (Neurons in the brain) and increased intestinal growth.
Professor Brian Kennedy, director of the Centre for Healthy aging at the National University of Singapore, who provided an independent view, said, “It is intriguing that the microbiome of an aged animal can promote youthful phenotypes in a young recipient. This suggests that the microbiota with aging have been modified to compensate for the accumulating deficits of the host and leads to the question of whether the microbiome from a young animal would have greater or less effects on a young host. The findings move forward our understanding of the relationship between the microbiome and its host during aging and set the stage for the development of microbiome-related interventions to promote healthy longevity.”
The increased neurogenesis was caused by an enrichment of gut microbes that produce a specific short-chain fatty acid (Butyrate). Butyrate is produced through microbial fermentation of dietary fibers in the lower intestinal tract and stimulates the productivity of a pro-longevity hormone called FGF2, which contributes to regulating the body’s metabolism, While we age butyrate is decreased. It was found that microbes collected from old mice had the ability to support neural growth in younger mice. These results can lead to conducting research into rather or now Butyrate might be able to help repair and rebuild in case of stroke and spinal damage.
