Daily Science Dose

A new study, one being praised for its thoroughness, shows that heavy red-meat eaters are at a higher risk of death from pretty much everything.

The National Cancer Institute looked at the cases of 500,000 patients and in particular questionaires they filled out detailing their intake of red meat and processed meats, as well as other factors like smoking, exercise, fondness for vegetables and fruits, how much they ate, yada, yada, yada. They split the respondents into five groups and the group you were in related to how much red and processed meat you ate. Level 1 the lowest, level five the highest.

It seems that over the years from 1995 to 2005, about 48,000 of the men in the study died, as well as almost 24,000 women. And guess what? A larger percentage of those heavy meat consumers died than the level 1’s.

The quintile who ate the most red meat had a higher risk for overall death, death from heart disease and cancer than the men and women who ate the least red meat.

The researchers said thousands of deaths could be prevented if people simply ate less meat.

“For overall mortality, 11 percent of deaths in men and 16 percent of deaths in women could be prevented if people decreased their red meat consumption to the level of intake in the first quintile,” [Rashmi] Sinha’s team wrote. –Reuters via Planet Ark

Well, what do you know… Red meat is bad for your health. I’m sure cows would agree with me here.

Not only does beef cost a hefty price in terms of your health, but do you know how bad the beef and meat industry is for the larger world? Pollution, water usage, crop diversion to animal feed, the flatulence…cows and pigs are dirty creatures. Chickens and turkeys are, too. Especially the way we raise them.

Not only that, but in the US, we consume far too much meat, due to our relative affluence and a snappy campaign from the Beef Industry to the tune of Aaron Copeland. There’s a lot of people in this world are vegetarians not by choice, but by necessity.

But in this land of meat and potatoes, and heart attacks, obesity, high cholesterol, hyper-tension, diabetes, cancer…when will we stop believing the ad campaigns? Just say no.

And I love the response from the American Meat Institute, an industry front.

But American Meat Institute executive president, James Hodges, said: “Meat products are part of a healthy, balanced diet and studies show they actually provide a sense of satisfaction and fullness that can help with weight control. Proper body weight contributes to good health overall.” –ibid.

Brilliant. I wonder how many of those heavy red meat consumers are achieving “proper body weight.”

red meat, processed meat, beef industry, National Cancer Institute, death, obesity, heart disease, cancer, pollution, water, Americans, health, food, agriculture

Popular theory has it that chocolate did not make an appearance in North America until the Europeans had taken the cacoa bean from Central America to Europe and then back across the Atlantic to the new colonial settlements on the North American continent. But it seems that some 1,000 year old mugs from New Mexico can dispel that theory. Archeologists have found traces of theobromine, a signature chemical found in cacao and chocolate in a pair of mugs, which previously had confused researchers as to their purpose.

Of course, looking at the objects, they sure don’t scream out chocolate-drinking mugs. And not truly knowing what they are for, you could imagine they held any number of items including most probably food. But what kind of food or liquid was the question, as scientists can tell a lot about a forgotten people from their “tools”, which includes ceramics used to store and preserve food. However, these “mugs” were open-topped, so you’d assume they would be used not for storage or preservation, but for some other purpose, perhaps eating. But why something so fancy, thin and tall? Patricia Crown of the University of New Mexico saw some Mayan chocolate mugs and the light bulb lit up above her head. The Chaco Valley mugs had traces of chocolate’s chemical compound, theobromine.

Chocolate was a delicacy for Mesoamericans starting from 500 BC, and as that part of the world was not so far advanced in cultivation, the cacao bean and the process to make it into a tasty beverage were not something for everyday consumption — unless you were rich enough. Chocolate spread from the Mayans to the Aztecs, but may have come from the Olmecs to the Mayans in the first place, so it is perfectly plausible that having such a long history, the cacao bean would have made its way to North American before the Spanish showed up in the New World.

And now it seems that there is evidence for chocolate’s arrival to other parts of the Western Hemisphere via internal trade routes between Central America and North America. Of course, like today, when a trade route is long and treacherous, costs go up. And archeologists are thinking that chocolate was a, what else, luxury good, used by early North Americans in the Southwest.

What was chocolate doing so far north? In Pueblo Bonito, the cylindrical vases appear at only a few sites and there are not many of them. They also don’t show up in burial sites, which means that they probably belonged to the community, says Crown. Drinking chocolate was likely a part of elaborate ceremonies similar to those seen in Mayan culture, she says. –Science Magazine

chocolate, cacao, cacao bean, archeology, Chaco Valley, early North America, Central America, trade, luxury goods, New Mexico, Mesoamericans, colonial, Spanish, Aztecs, Olmecs, Mayan

We humans are in quite a noodle. We need energy. Both in our bodies in the form of food and in our creature comforts in the form of fuel. Crops need good soil in which to grow, and there is only so much good soil in the world. Our fuel choice du seicle are fossil fuels, and though they sure do create a lot of energy, they also create a lot of carbon dioxide and other environmentally-detrimental substances. So-called biofuels are those that are not based upon deposits of petrochemicals underground, but instead rather on renewable (read re-growable) plant or other organic matter. Seems like these fuels would make a better choice for humanity’s power lust, but…

Some biofuels are better than others.

Japtropha

Jatropha curcas, also known as the Barbados Nut and the Physic Nut is a perennial shrub that produces black seeds or “nuts” that contain a large amount of oil that can be used directly in some generators and can also be processed into a higher quality bio-diesel. The seed is about one-third oil, and one hectare of jatropha bushes can produce over one metric ton of oil in even poor soils.

And that is the real bonus of jatropha. Jatropha bushes can grow just about anywhere. The bushes only need about 10 inches of rain a year, and that is only when they are young. Additionally, the Jatrophas are long-lasting producers and can live for 40 years.

Jatropha up until recently was not cultivated as a domesticated crop, but that may be changing as the potential of jatropha is being researched and developed in such developing countries as Zambia, Mali, India, China and the Phillipines. Jatropha originates in the Central America, and was exported to colonies to grow as live hedges to keep livestock and crops safe. The bushes are poisonous to most animals, so it acts as a great fence, in addition to acting as a good wind break for more delicate crops. The bushes were also inter-planted among field crops, and it was found that the bushes grew very well as companion plants.

Oh, did I mention that Japtropha has no need for pesticides and deters pests from entering the field? Yeah, jatropha is naturally disease- and pest-resistant. And the matter that is left over after the seeds have been pressed for oil is naturally high in nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium, which are the big three nutrients used to fertilize other crops.

Let’s review. Jatropha can grow in poor soils that won’t grow other crops and needs very little water. It can be interplanted among other crops as a secondary crop, and acts as a pest-deterrent. It needs no fertilizing, and it’s waste matter makes a great fertilizer rich in nutrients. Jatropha produces a biofuel that can be used to run generators in small villages as well as processed to produce biodiesel.

In addition to biofuels, the jatropha oil can also be made into soap, charcoal, and mosquito repellant.

jatropha, jatropha curcas, biofuels, biodiesel, fossil fuels, carbon dioxide, crops, agriculture, energy, fertilizer, pesticide, nutrients, soil

Just when you did not think that the healthcare crisis in the United States could get any worse, some disturbing new information has been released by the National Institutes of Health could mean just that. Increased and better testing for Diabetes is showing that more and more Americans are at risk for this disease.

For a system that is already stressed and underfunded, diabetes is already a huge burden on the nation’s health. Putting more diabetes patients into a system that can hardly handle what patients it already has may prove to be disastrous for our current system.

Type 2 Diabetes is one of those diseases that preventative care could prevent. The idea behind preventative care is simple — educate people and teach them to care for their bodies in ways that will help to prevent certain lifestyle diseases. Of course, some people will get Diabetes no matter what, but in most cases of Type 2, healthy changes in lifestyle can be a game changer.

Let’s look at some numbers. The new survey looked at two studies which tested people in two ways. The Fasting Blood Glucose (FBG) test is the standard way to test for diabetes. It’s cheap and it’s quick, but it is not the most accurate test. The Oral Glucose Tolerance Test (OGTT) is the newer diabetes test and it is more accurate and better at diagnosing diabetes in older patients as well as diagnosing a pre-diabetic condition that may or may not become diabetes (but usually does because most people don’t realize they are pre-diabetic and therefore do nothing to change their ways and prevent the onset of actual diabetes).

The survey says that 13% of adult Americans have Diabetes, but 40% of those people do not know it yet. The highest number is in the elderly and minority populations. Additionally, 30% of adults have pre-diabetes.

“We’re facing a diabetes epidemic that shows no signs of abating, judging from the number of individuals with pre-diabetes,” said lead author Catherine Cowie, Ph.D., of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK), a part of the NIH. “For years, diabetes prevalence estimates have been based mainly on data that included a fasting glucose test but not an OGTT. The 2005-2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, or NHANES, is the first national survey in 15 years to include the OGTT. The addition of the OGTT gives us greater confidence that we’re seeing the true burden of diabetes and pre-diabetes in a representative sample of the U.S. population.” — NIH News

So, if these numbers are even kind of accurate, the percentage of American adults who could have Diabetes in the next decade or two could be 43%. That is crazy epidemic numbers. There is obviously something very, very wrong with our American lifestyle (which we are more than happy to export to everywhere).

Diabetes, healthcare, United States, National Institutes of Health, testing, type 2, health, disease, epidemic, pre-diabetes, Americans, lifestyle

A new study lays out the idea and the evidence that wild harvested fish, animals and plants are becoming adaptive to aggressive harvesting by humans. So adaptive in fact that the species are maturing at smaller sizes and at earlier ages. These rapid mini-evolutionary changes are so alarming that the researchers behind the study warn of “imperil[ing] populations, industries, and ecosystems.”

Human consumption of food stuffs, animals included, is reaching such an imbalance that animals are growing smaller, literally. Size and weights are reduced by 20%, and females are reaching reproductive maturity at younger ages by 25%. That may not seem like such a big idea, but if you are 6 feet tall or 72 inches, if you lost 20% of your height, you’d be a tad shy of 4 feet 10 inches tall. That’s a big difference. Additionally, females having offspring at younger ages usually results in smaller broods in the younger years, leading to a net loss in offspring overall. When smaller animals breed, the resulting offspring will be smaller as well, further reducing the stock size.

The study looked at the food-gathering practices for a number of species, and found that the species that humans found the tastiest have proved the quickest adapters. Not out of anything but necessity, mind you. When a species loses more of its adult population, younger fish will naturally try to fill the procreative gap. In the case of more than 20 species, those natural (yet anthropogenic) changes are occurring at rates that are more than double the rate that other not-so-aggressively harvested species are changing.

This is disturbing news. Not only from the affected species point of view, but from a human standpoint, the food we rely on to feed the six plus billion of us is going to be getting smaller. Smaller food means less food. This burgeoning population know as the human population will be needing more food, not less. These findings are also proof that common fisheries practices that only allow the largest animals to be harvested is a faulty method that is ensuring that smaller representatives of the species will be the only adults left to create the next generations.

mammals, food, wild harvest, fish, animals, plants, adapt, evolution, population, reproduction

The nation of Liberia (on the western African coast, right above the lower left corner of the bulbous top part of Africa) has declared a state of emergency in its Bong County area, along the Guinean border. African army worms are devastating the crops in such numbers that the Liberian government is asking for international aid to combat the infestation.

The African Army Worm (AAW) is a nasty devil that is a remorseless eating machine if ever there is one. The two-inch long worms get their moniker from the worms tactics of moving en masse from field to field, consuming everything in its path. Kinda like a real army, in the Napoleonic sense.

The Liberian Minister of Agriculture told news organizations that so far 19 villages have been decimated by the marauding worms. Not only is the problem with the voracious appetites of the AAW’s, but also the, um, aftermath of the feasting.

This is not the first time that the African Worm Army has terrorized an African country. Three years ago, Zimbabwe faced starvation situations when army worms showed up. Kenya and Tanzania had their outbreaks in the late 90’s.

So, here’s the thing, army worms are generally controlled by pesticides here in the US and in other nations where even the small farmer can afford chemicals to grow stuff. The good majority of African farmers are organic farmers, not because it is the cool thing to do, but rather because that is all they know and can afford. Why would these farmers start using chemicals just when the world is hopefully moving away from chemical-based agriculture?

Unfortunately, this is a sticky subject. You don’t want the sustenance farmer to die due to a pest infestation that could have been prevented by a safe-enough pesticide, but then again, we really don’t know the long-term effects of said pesticide…what do you do?

African army worms are naturally contained by something that eats them, so how can poor African farmers foster an environment in which the natural enemy of the AAW is welcome to cull the AAW population and attempt to keep the numbers in check. That takes trees.

Birds eat the worms, right? And birds live in trees and bushes, in other words, birds need strong natural habitats full of trees and bushes. Unfortunately, Liberia and most of Africa is experiencing problems with deforestation. A growing human population needs room, and trees are the first to go.

Also, there are better ways to farm organically, and education is needed to attempt to grow adequate amounts of crops for not only the farmer and his or her family, but also the village and the nation.

Liberia, african army worms, Africa, crops, damage, agriculture, state of emergency, Bong County, Guinea, Tanzania, Zimbabwe, Kenya, deforestation

My thanks to the FEED newsletter from the Union of Concerned Scientists for this one.

It seems that traditional breeding methods are out-performing genetic modifications in developing drought-resistant crops. And as water becomes more and more scarce, drought-resistant crops are a big deal.

The United States Department of Agriculture has recently published some news about drought-resistant soybeans. By going back to the home of the soybean, China, for variety species that are not known in the US, and using some more exotic Chinese varieties of the staple crop, breeders have been able to cross a drought-resistant variety with a more common variety to produce soybeans that are testing well here in the US.

Using conventional breeding methods, Carter and his team develop hundreds of new breeding lines each year, for a total of more than 5,000. Five of them have stood out for further development and are now in validation trials across the South. Based on the results of these tests, the team will soon release advanced breeding lines that carry the slow-wilting trait and also show good yield potential when rainfall is plentiful.

The slow-wilting lines yield 4 to 8 bushels more than conventional varieties under drought conditions—depending on the region and environment, says Carter. For example, under drought conditions, normal soybeans yield 30 bushels per acre, but slow-wilting types yield about 35 bushels per acre. –USDA

That’s zero for genetically-modified drought-resistance, and a gazillion for traditionally-bred drought-resistance.

Ok, I have no data to back up that “gazillion” claim, but traditional breeding has been around for a long time, and there is no telling how many times it has helped develop crops that can go without water for a bit or withstand long, hot summers or even thrive in harsh conditions. If it were not for traditional breeding, well, we may not have many sub-species and varieties that we have today.

Besides, traditional breeding is the way Nature does it, so why shouldn’t we?

On another note, a NGO (non-governmental organization) is working with farmers in Africa and developed a drought-resistant variety of cassava (a staple in that part of the world and others, also known as yuca). And this variety is producing 6 to 10 times the amount of cassava that the usual seed stock is producing.

USDA, drought-resistance, genetically-modified, traditional breeding, genetics, GMO, NGO, soybeans, cassava, yuca, Africa, crops, agriculture

There is nothing I find more oxymoronic than the term “political science.” More often than not, politics and science are locked in battle, with politics trumping science.

When Good Science Is Ignored

With the upcoming election, it is hard not to be thinking of politics lately, and if you have read some of my previous posts, you will notice that I tend to think in political terms often when it comes to science. For example, what can the new President and Congress do to compensate for 8 years of bad science by way of the Bush Administration? Do you remember those days, less than 2 years ago, when Bush and his “scientists” claimed that global warming was a hoax, the science was bad, it wasn’t man-made, there wasn’t a consensus among scientists on the issue, it was the fault of alarmist environmentalists, etc, etc, etc…

Seems like global warming isn’t the only crisis that is worsening due to politics trumping good science. I ran across this article recently, and despite our nation’s growing (excuse the pun) obesity problem, it seems that the food industry is trying its hardest to undermine science. And why, you ask? Money, profits, returns to shareholders, call it what you want, I call it greed.

All that processed food Americans eat come from major corporations that all form a, shall we say, club. That club then goes to Congressional leaders asking them to let them market their products, however unhealthy, to kids. And by way of thanks, those corporations have employees that give lots of money to that same Congressional leader that is letting them sell their processed, sugary, salty, so-good-but-oh-so-bad foods. If you don’t think that your favorite snack food is from a major corporation, check out the website. Look around for the parent company, usually at the bottom of the page, next to a year and a copyright symbol or trademark. Better yet, go to the corporate websites for Kraft, Nabisco, or even Kelloggs. You will see how many brands are owned by the same company. Even seemingly competing brands, like the so-called healthy brands like Snackwells and the far-from-healthy Oreos, are being marketed by the same company (in this case, Nabisco) or for another example, Hormel not only sells Hormel Chili, but also Stagg Chili. For goodness sake, look at the cola wars. Coke and Pepsi are great examples of corporate-power-gone-wrong.

I remember in high school when a soda vending machine was installed in our cafeteria. And then I read that soda machines went into elementary schools. Soda? Soda is so far-from-healthy that no one should drink it, much less little kids.

Now, don’t get me wrong, every little kid wants soda, and it is not going to kill anybody sparingly or at least in moderation, but we are seeing the effects of children and processed, sugary foods. This nation is fat and our kids are going to suffer for it. And rather than reign in the companies that are pitching their goods at little kids, the Government is putting its head in the sand.

Kind of like with global warming. Will an 8 year absence of reason be too long to rectify when saner heads prevail in our nation’s capital? Will saner heads ever prevail in Washington, or will we, as a people, reject the constant bombardment of advertising at our kids and show that rejection by passing on the high fructrose corn syrup?

science, global warming, politics, Bush, environmentalists, alarmist, scientists, greed, corporations, shareholders, Kraft, Nabisco, Kelloggs, Coke, Pepsi, Hormel, Stagg, processed food, junk food, cola, high fructrose corn syrup, advertising, kids, children

I found this interesting, and disturbing, considering the amount of Pollock that we Americans consume. Recent studies are showing that Alaskan Pollock is moving to colder Russian waters.

This is from the LA Times.

Pollock spawn each winter near the Aleutian Islands and then follow their food north as waters warm in the spring. But the food has shifted farther north with receding sea ice, and now pollock, which follow the northwesterly contour of the continental shelf, are shifting their range ever closer to Russian waters.

Scientists who help manage the fishery are confirming what fishermen report: The fish disappear from the Aleutians area each summer and can mostly be found near Russia.

Every June and July, federal scientists trawl a grid pattern in the Bering Sea in an area about the size of California. Counting the fish caught in these trawls and matching them against sonar readings, they estimate the size of fish stocks. These assessments help set limits on the next year’s catch to safeguard spawning stock.

An analysis of 25 years of surveys showed that the ranges of most fish are shifting north as the ice and cool water have retreated, said Franz J. Mueter, a fisheries oceanographer at the University of Alaska.

“What we found confirmed the obvious,” Mueter said. “As waters warm, a lot of fish on the eastern Bering Sea shelf are moving north.”

Not all scientists agree. Some suggest that other factors need further study, including different migration patterns of older and younger fish, whether trawl data provide a complete picture of fish populations, and whether these waters are becoming overfished despite the Marine Stewardship Council’s eco-label certifying that the pollock fishery is managed sustainably.

So the implications of fewer pollock are many, indeed. Firstly, yeah, Americans eat a lot of the stuff, in fast-food, fishsticks (after all the cod disappeared), and imitation crab and lobster. Second, if the fish move to Russian waters, US fisherman will not be catching the pollock, thus putting more strain on other fisheries and the local Alaskan economy. What happens when the US is forced to import more fish? Also, with less fish being caught, prices will most likely go up, like the prices of just about everything lately. More still, do the Russians take fish stocks as seriously (and I can barely keep a straight face writing that) as the Americans? Sure, some scientists were allowed over the border now, but what happens in the future, especially if relations with the Russians continue to become chilly. Not only that, but what will happen to the Stellar sea lion as the pollock are a major part of their diet? Will they also follow the fish, and if so, will they continue to be as protected as they are in Alaskan waters? Yeah, there are lots of problems here.

Also, what of the larger implication of migrating fish stocks due to warming? How many other species will move out of US waters as we continue to pump carbon into the air and water? As it is right now, there a fewer and fewer fish that are considered “good choices” by environmental groups and oceanographic institutes across the world. Pollock is already in trouble as a commercial fish stock, despite many groups saying that it is sustainable, with recent reports that the recovery of the stocks is not going as swimmingly (couldn’t resist) as possible.

This is just more bad news for fish and the people and others predators who love to eat them.

pollock, Alaskan pollock, walleye pollock, Russian Federation, Russia, Russian Waters, America, United States, fisheries, management, fish stocks, fish sticks, cod, Pacific, Alaska, sustainable, overfishing