Discussion forum

  
Catalan
Castellano
 

The influence of the environment on human health
Número 31 - diciembre 2001
 

Editorial


Health and the environment: from ambiguity to economic accountability
Xavier Duran

Environment as a determining factor of health
Maria Rosa Girbau i Katy Salas

Influence of the Environment on the Relationships between Food and Healh
Abel Mariné Font i M. Carmen Vidal Carou

Air Pollution and its Effects on Health
Jordi Sunyer i Deu

Environmental Risks
Manolis Kogevinas, Josep M. Antó i Jordi Sunyer

Interview with Alfons Calera Rubio
Lluís Reales

European measures to protect man and the environment from dangerous substances and preparations
Ignasi Doñate


Hippocrates Said It First!

Hippocrates, the most important physician in antiquity, explained in his work "Treatise on Airs, Waters and Places" that man depends on the forces of nature. The "health" of the environment influences human health. Hundreds of years later, this Hippocratic approach remains absolutely valid.

The big difference from the era in which the father of clinical observation lived is the change in the environment and the lifestyles propitiated by human intelligence.

In a context of globalisation of markets and, therefore, of the logic initiated by the Industrial Revolution, Planet Earth has undergone a series of alterations that are apparent on a global as well as local level. The greenhouse effect, climatic change, the hole in the ozone layer, acid rain, desertification, loss of biological diversity and genetic resources, deterioration of many urban environments, appearance of new pathologies associated with our lifestyles… this environment affects human health. Many diseases have been eradicated, but new ones appear which are linked to a society that produces wellbeing while generating risks, many of which are associated with health.

In this issue of the magazine Medi Ambient. Tecnologia i Cultura, we take on an oceanic subject: health and environment. Our goal is to present a panoramic view of up-to-the-minute, key aspects in a field -the influence of the environment on human health- that currently moves -and will continue to move in the coming years- many medical and scientific resources.
The scientific journalist and chemist Xavier Duran argues for the need for more research in order to establish with a maximum amount of certainty the effects of environmental changes on human health. He also delves into the need to have economic indicators include the damage caused by certain products or activities in order to have the price come closer to the real cost to society.

Rosa Girbau and Catalina Salas, professors at the Nursing College of the University of Barcelona (Escola Universitària d'Infermeria de la Universitat de Barcelona), explain why the condition of the environment is a key factor in individual and collective wellbeing.

Nutrition experts Abel Mariné and Carme Vidal, researchers at the University of Barcelona, analyse the influence of the environment on food and health. They send us a message of calm in regard to the safety of the food we eat.

The physician Jordi Sunyer, researcher at the Municipal Institute of Medical Research (Institut Municipal d'Investigacions Mèdiques or IMIM), explains how the quality of the air affects our bodies. In another article, Jordi Sunyer, together with Manolis Kogevinas and Josep Maria Antó from the IMIM, set forth the latest research related to health in regard to water pollution, industrial waste, dioxins, electromagnetic fields and mobile phones.

The interview is with Alfons Calera, an expert in occupational health. Finally, there is the regular contribution by the lawyer Ignasi Doñate, who explains European regulations on protecting people and the environment from hazardous substances.
All these articles make clear just how right the wise physician Hippocrates was.

Lluís Reales
Editor of Medi Ambient. Tecnologia i Cultura




Health and the environment: from ambiguity to economic accountability
Xavier Duran.
Chemist and scientific journalist.

Despite the fact that some doubts still remain, there is increasing evidence that environmental problems have a negative impact on health. The global change that the planet is experiencing may exacerbate these problems, especially in poorer countries. In order to offset this, the effects on health need to be made economically accountable and attempts made to reduce the inequalities that increase the risks in certain areas and social classes.

One of the characters in "Hard Times" (1854), the wealthy businessman Mr. Bounderby, speaks highly of the fumes that cloud the air of the industrial town of Coketown: "That's meat and drink to us. It's the healthiest thing in the world in all respects, and particularly for the lungs. If you are one of those who want us to consume it, I differ from you. We are not going to wear the bottoms of our boilers out any faster than we wear 'em out now, for all the humbugging sentiment in Great Britain and Ireland". In this novel, Charles Dickens portrays industrial society, with its subsequent cost in social and environmental terms and inequality, in a truly masterly way. However, in a society that appeared to produce so much wealth and did well for the interests of Mr.

Bounderby, and more than likely many other people as well, what was the point in worrying about all that smoke? And even though it was so strongly affecting the working class neighbourhoods (sic) "in the innermost fortifications of that ugly citadel, where Nature was as strongly bricked out as killing airs and gases were bricked in (…), in the last close nook of this great exhausted receiver, where the chimneys, for want of air to make a draught, were built in an immense variety of stunted and crooked shapes?."1

The smoke produced by the technological and economic revolution undoubtedly caused many health problems, yet the cause of these problems had been around for some time. In 1775, the English surgeon Percival Pott noted an unusually high rate of cancer of the scrotum amongst chimney sweeps. In addition to certain work-related diseases such as this, it is likely that inadequate hygiene conditions and over-crowding, together with the use of large quantities of coal, produced an increase in the number of diseases and deaths, and that these misfortunes affected particularly the poorer social classes. In 1845, Friedrich Engels, in "The conditions of the working class in England", produced some epidemiological data according to which the mortality rate in the poorer areas of the city of Manchester were twice that of the more well-off areas. Life expectancy in the industrial centres in 1840 was 25 for the workers and 55 for the upper classes.

It would seem to be undeniable that the obvious improvements in the living conditions of the majority of people have been accompanied by inadequacies that have also contributed to the emergence or expansion of health and sanitation problems. As development has provided new tools to prevent or remedy disease, man has found himself in a social context where new risks have appeared and where the aforementioned new tools were not accessible to everybody. Instead of it increasing, particular social groups have even found their well-being to have decreased in the name of so-called progress.

Nevertheless, when it comes to establishing the consequences of environmental degradation on health or, to express it in a way that does not imply negative judgement, of the changes that socio-economic activities have introduced in the environment (together with the changes that the planet naturally undergoes), one runs up against the problems of ambiguity. Health problems in the genetic era would appear to be attributed to specific causes that can be precisely located. On the other hand, when it comes to health problems resulting from environmental conditions, this certainty is disconcerting or at least it opens the way for many difficulties in establishing the causes and consequences in a conclusive way. To start with, environmental conditions already amount to a wide range of elements from atmospheric and noise pollution to the emergence of a detrimental socio-economic setting. It therefore boils down to a very large number of possible causes that can be mutually stimulated or offset. This makes it difficult to come to any ultimate conclusion, which is what many people appear to be demanding, including, and what is even more serious, many policy makers who have to find the means to apply safeguards.

Such levels of certainty are not demanded in other areas. Many economic measures are applied without anybody having established that they have indisputably found the cause of either the problem that is to be resolved or the results that these actions will bring about. If politicians were to ask economists for the type of conclusive data that they are demanding from climatologists and ecologists, few decisions would be made in this field and it is more than likely that the state budget of most countries would still be at the level of several years ago. One cannot expect to achieve absolute certainty in the field of environmental health, as in many others, and for this reason clear indications or significant evidence should be sufficient for measures to be undertaken.

While increasing amounts of data on the effects of pollution on health have become available, it is difficult to verify these effects due to the wide variety of factors that are involved. When it comes to analysing the effects of a particular issue or thing under study, for example, the concentration of certain pollutants, factors such as predisposition, lifestyle habits, socio-economic status and other determining factors of each particular individual need to be taken into account. This in fact is done in all epidemiological studies although in many other cases it is much easier to separate the different factors.

Furthermore, different large-scale studies appear to link pollutants with the consequences for health and the increase in mortality. In the so-called Six City Study by the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, data on mortality rates and pollution levels were compared for six cities in North America, with data on more than 8,000 adults being gathered over a period of 16 years. The results showed that the risk of dying young for people living in the most polluted city (Steubenville, Ohio) was 26% higher than that of the inhabitants of the city with the cleanest air (Portage, Washington).2 Criticism from certain sources compelled the data to be reanalysed from the point of view of a wide range of factors, such as education, income level, ethnic grouping, access to health care, and others. The inclusion of new factors by the Health Effects Institute, an independent organisation made up of both industrial and governmental groups, made no change to the results, which warned of the risk of particles smaller than 2.5 micrometers in diameter or PM2.5. Other studies would also appear to confirm that particles smaller than 10 micrometers in diameter (PM10) increase the risk of death from all causes, and especially from cardiovascular or respiratory diseases.3

Other studies link atmospheric pollution with infant and adult mortality4 and different types of disease. While new studies are required in many cases to confirm the hypotheses, sufficient indications already probably exist to enable certain relationships to be established and that show the need for measures to be taken. However, all of this depends, as is mentioned below, on the balance that is struck between the benefits and detrimental effects of these measures.

The effects of global change

On the other hand, if the relationship between environmental problems and health really does exist (the fact that it does exist would appear to be undeniable so it is more a question of what relationship and to what degree), will the situation get worse with the process of global change? Once again, one comes up against uncertainty. Even though the latest reports by the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) do not leave much room for doubt concerning global change, some of its consequences and the responsibility of human activities in the process, political, economic and industrial sectors do not appear to be inclined to accept the idea and, at all events, they resist taking any measures to mitigate it due, they say, to the economic cost that this would lead to. The cost-benefit balance, which is discussed further on, emerges yet again.

The expression 'global change' means that the effects go way beyond a mere increase in the average temperature of the planet. These changes will have a great effect on the complex workings of the atmosphere and the ecosystems on Earth and will lead to socio-economic and even geopolitical effects at the same time.

In what way can they affect health? Yet again, one comes up against a multiple variety of factors. The effects in each zone will not differ merely because of diverse climatic variations but because it will be necessary to consider the outset from the socio-economic, demographic and environmental points of view as well. One example, taken from some studies carried out in Germany and United States, is the extreme temperatures that have led to a slight increase in the number of deaths in summertime over the last few years although this increase has been more significant in certain places and in certain years. The reasons may be greater access to air-conditioned buildings or a reduction in the number of certain cardiovascular risk factors that increase people's susceptibility to heat waves. This will obviously not be valid, however, for all social classes in these places or for the majority of the inhabitants in other countries who will be more vulnerable to this increase in temperature.5

Some of the possible effects of global change include a decrease in air quality in urban areas with pollution problems, changes in the spatial and seasonal distribution of the vectors of certain infectious diseases, variations in the marine environment which increase the risk of toxicity from fish and shellfish consumption, and a decrease in food availability, which would enhance the problems of nutrition in different countries with a low level of socio-economic development.6

It is a complex matter to establish the consequences of all of these possible consequences because it is still not known precisely what the effects are and to what degree climatic change will take place in particular regions. Furthermore, the possible health consequences, even assuming certain climatic variations, are also a source of debate. A report by the US National Academies of Science National Research Council (NRC), published in April 2001, stated that there is very little sound scientific evidence to support the conclusions on the negative impact of climatic change on health. The report declared that the relationship between climate, human behaviour and infectious diseases is so complex that it makes any form of prediction very difficult.

The NRC committee considers that many predictions have been based on short term climatic variations without taking into account other factors that may have had an influence, such as changes in public health interventions and human geography. The differences between regions subjected to very similar conditions is very clear, one example being the outbreaks of dengue on either side of the border between United States and Mexico. Between 1980 and 1996 there were 50,000 confirmed cases in the three Mexican states that border on the Río Grande and less than one hundred in neighbouring regions just north of the river in Texas over the same period. This was due to the fact that most of the inhabitants in Texas spend more time at home where they have air conditioning and blinds on the windows. This means that there were fewer possibilities for them to get bitten by mosquitoes.

According to those who point to the sanitation risks of global change, the NRC overlooks the fact that certain changes have already been detected in the distribution of the vectors of certain diseases (mosquitoes have spread to higher areas of Papua-New Guinea, Rwanda and areas of Central and South America where there was previously no malaria) and, on the other hand, it presents a view that focuses mainly on the United States, where sanitation measures exist that are beyond the reach of developing countries.7

Some studies point out that even Nordic countries have been affected. The fact that spring has been brought forward, together with a milder climate in general, has led to an increase in encephalitis which is transmitted by a certain type of parasite. Other possible factors include a population increase in endemic areas and an increase in the number of household pets.8 Once again, however, these are countries with health and sanitation structures that enable this problem to be dealt with.

In fact, the species of mosquito that carry the micro-organisms that produce malaria and dengue have been detected at higher altitudes due to the fact that the higher temperatures enable them to adapt to places where they cannot normally live (the mosquito that transmits dengue has been observed at an altitude of 2,200 metres in Colombia). Many such countries do not have sanitation and public health service structures that permit rapid action if some initial cases are detected and the way of life and the needs of the inhabitants expose them even more to infection. These infectious diseases, malnutrition and heat waves can have much more serious effects in poorer countries.9 If sufficient attention is paid to the uncertainties, climatic change may not notably lead to an increase in the outbreak of these diseases in certain places. However, the combination of climatic change and deficient sanitation and social structures most definitely will.

There are also climatic phenomena that are independent of human action that have an influence on certain diseases. One case is the ENSO (El Niño-Southern Oscillation), an abnormally warm ocean current in the Western Pacific that can cause highly diverse effects including torrential rains and drought and affect food availability in areas that are thousands of kilometres apart. The ENSO appears to have some kind of relationship with cholera epidemics in Bangladesh and research into this could enable preventive measures to be taken inside the country itself.10

Lastly, mention should also be made of some negative effects (even though they may well be temporary) of so-called globalisation and the exportation of Western ways of life to societies that have maintained very different habits. For example, a fat and carbohydrate-rich diet rich is more than likely the cause of the increase in diabetes in countries like Nauru,11 where the metabolism of most people is adapted to food availability and climate. Another example is the appearance of cases of anorexia and bulimia in Fiji a few years after the arrival of television in these Pacific islands. According to Anne Becker, an anthropologist at the Harvard Medical School, 74% of Fijian girls thought they were too big or fat in 1998, 38 months after the arrival of TV and series like "Melrose Place" or "Xena: Warrior Princess".12 Other factors may have an influence on the appearance of these diseases but it is quite likely that the importation of fashion trends from the West has been largely responsible for this.

More than just the exportation of habits, globalisation is a complex and probably unstoppable process that provides benefits on the one hand but also generates risks and inequality on the other. The fact that markets become globalised but not regulations and controls may end up exacerbating certain problems, both in the developing and developed countries. On the one hand, there is a lack of stricter controls over the obtaining and processing of food products in developing countries (the use of particular pesticides, for example). On the other, it is not rationally justifiable that substances prohibited in developed countries continue to be used in the developing countries.

Only in certain cases can there be sufficiently convincing reasons and then with the proviso that these are periods of transition. One example is the use of DDT. One of the latest pieces of research on the effects DDT has on health points out that the number of premature births in the United States between 1959 and 1966 was linked to concentrations of DDE (a product resulting from the breakdown of DDT) in the mothers' blood. The research workers stressed that premature birth is one of the factors that contribute to the risk of infant mortality.13 However, in countries where malaria is an important cause of death, especially in children under the age of 5, the use of DDT to eliminate mosquitoes that transmit the malaria-causing micro-organism can provide more benefits than harm, as long as such measures are not viewed as a permanent solution and alternative forms of protection are searched for.

Economic accountability

Establishing the real risk of increase of certain diseases is important for deciding whether measures are to be taken and, if so, which ones. When looking for certainty, however, one should remember the words of Disraeli: "People's health is the foundation on which their well-being and strength are built". Increasing the health standards, therefore, does not just mean reducing the pain and suffering of a few people or improving the statistics for life expectancy. Health is an essential element that conditions both people's happiness and their ability to progress and increase their wealth and standard of living. In these terms, health improvement cannot be seen as a cost but as the best investment there is.

Likewise, when it comes to calculating the relationship between the cost and return of these investments, highly different and even startling interpretations can be made that depend not just on the credibility of the predictions but also the concept itself of the meaning of well-being and economic growth.

A book was published in 1997 on the economic costs of certain unhealthy habits, such as smoking and drinking alcohol, and of traffic accidents.14 The research on which the bulk of the book was based had been financially sponsored by Philip Morris, which, according to the co-ordinator of the book, "had naturally given the authors free rein to express their opinions".15 In the introduction, the co-ordinator, Francisco-Javier Braña, from the Universidad Complutense in Madrid, claimed that the differences of absenteeism between smokers and non-smokers were very small, according to studies carried out in the United States, and, furthermore, that there was no proof or studies to support the figures that have been given on the impact of tobacco on passive smokers. At all events, the conclusion of the research was that taxes on tobacco were much higher than the potentially harmful effects caused by tobacco.

As is well known, the large tobacco companies have denied for a long time that smoking is clearly related to particular types of disease or a decrease in life expectancy. It would appear that they have later changed tack, although their assessment had recourse more to bad taste that to serious economic research. A report, commissioned by Philip Morris and drafted by the Arthur D. Little firm of consultants, appeared in July 2001 with an assessment of the indirect positive effects of tobacco smoking in the Czech Republic. The conclusions were that the country made a saving of 1,227 dollars (around 1,400 euros) every time that a smoker died. In overall numbers, the Czech state would have saved around 5,800 million crowns (17.4 million euros) in 1998 from the death of smokers, as a result of the fact that it would no longer have to account for certain expenses. The balance was calculated by using figures of the interest on tobacco taxes plus savings in housing for the elderly, retirement pensions and other social and health care costs in general.

What was just another joke on the witty British comedy series "Yes, minister", with a practically identical line of argument to this, was now disguised as scientific study. The scandal forced Philip Morris to apologise and cancel similar studies in other East European countries,16 as well as recognising that "no-one benefits from the very real and serious diseases caused by tobacco".17

It is surprising, for one thing, that the tobacco company was so quick to present arguments denying the negative influence of tobacco in shortening people's lives and to consider the savings when enough people die before reaching the age when they deserve to receive a retirement pension. It is either a question of 'tobacco does not kill and the Czech State does not make any savings' or 'tobacco does kill and we are faced with a serious public health problem'.

On the other hand, however, it is also surprising to see how very little value is attached to human life and people's health. Using data that were probably very similar, yet with a completely different ethical slant, another study (this time a real scientific research project) came to different conclusions. Research workers at the Erasmus University in Rotterdam (Netherlands) calculated that if an important percentage of the people stopped smoking, then savings would be made in the short term whereas in the long term, it would mean an increase in the costs of health care, i.e. more people would live to an age when the costs shoot up.18 However, the researchers ended by emphasising the fact that if smoking is a high risk to health, then the aim of policies concerning this habit should be clear and simple, i.e. people should be discouraged from smoking because society has decided to invest money in adding years onto life and health onto years.

This just goes to show that any economic analysis of health cannot deviate from the objectives that are sought after. In terms of savings alone, this would lead to tobacco being promoted as a way of reducing expenditure on retirement and health care for the elderly. However, if good health and the increase in life expectancy are considered an asset, then they need to be accounted for in economic terms one way or another. If not, any calculations that are made will be biased. Furthermore, there are costs that would be evaluated quite differently according to the data provided - if one takes into account whether tobacco and pollution increase respiratory or cardiovascular problems or not. There are even technical devices for reducing the impact of uncertainty in these studies.19

These evaluations are also conditioned, however, because the benefits may occur in the medium or long term whereas policy makers are more interested in immediate effects on the economy and those that have a very tangible economic value. Moreover, when it comes to talking about money, the basic idea is that "all profit can be potentially evaluated in monetary terms".20
Certain environmental problems can also have different positive and negative effects. The depletion of the ozone layer enhances the effect of ultraviolet radiation, which affects the immune system as well as causing more skin cancer.21 While this can lead to higher vulnerability to infectious diseases, it can also lead to a decrease in autoimmune diseases such as diabetes.22

In other cases, environmental measures devised to deal with a particular problem can provide additional health benefits. This is the case of the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions as a way of dealing with climatic change. As well as reducing the effects of this change on health, it can also lead to benefits in the short term by reducing respiratory and cardiovascular problems. An American research team pointed out these benefits over the last two decades in Mexico City, New York city, Santiago de Chile and São Paulo that have a joint population of 45 million people.23 Their results show that a reduction in emissions until the year 2020 and in these cities alone would prevent 64,000 premature deaths, 65,000 cases of chronic bronchitis and 37 million working days lost due to incapacity for work or limited working activity. They emphasised that the calculations are conservative as many other pollutants and effects, which cannot be precisely quantified with current knowledge, are not included. Another study, quoted by the authors, points to the fact that a reduction of the emissions from coal-burning power stations in the United States would prevent 18,700 deaths every year and lead to a saving of 3 million lost working days and 16 million days lost through limited working activity.24

Nevertheless, the effects on health would not appear to modify the accountability of certain activities. The joy with which an increase in car sales is greeted and the pessimism that seems to accompany a decline shows the importance given to a sector that in effect does have a large impact on Gross National Product, both in terms of direct (the car industry and maintenance) and indirect profits (infrastructure, tourism, entertainment, etc.). These benefits would need to be at least made more precise with the negative effects on health, from accidents to the diseases and deaths connected with atmospheric and noise pollution, without mentioning the costs of congestion and time wasted. In Mexico City, for example, seventy-five percent of all pollution comes from motor vehicles. Many large cities in Asia also have serious problems due to the large increase in the number of vehicles.

There is probably more documentary evidence covering the effects of lead pollution than most others. Although there are other possible sources of this metal, most of the lead absorbed into the bodies of children comes from petrol that contains lead as an additive.25 The increase in the use of lead-free petrol has led to a significant decrease in the concentrations of this metal in people's blood.26

Lead causes various problems in neurological development. A relationship has been observed between levels of lead and lower IQ and learning problems. Moreover, it may be practically impossible or highly difficult to correct the effects of exposure during infancy. At least one experiment with a drug to eliminate lead from the body showed that children did not undergo any improvement in IQ.27

These effects of pollution (lead and other substances) should logically either be included as a negative effect of the increase in the number of cars or internalised in the cost of fuel. On the other hand, it is curious how often the opposite occurs. For example, the lower price of diesel petrol leads to an increase in the number of vehicles with diesel engines, despite the negative impact that this type of fuel has on health, due to both carcinogenic effects (probably much less than tobacco) and respiratory and cardiovascular problems.28 These costs should be incorporated in the price of diesel petrol.

Another example is that of the research carried out by Jordi Sunyer and his team at IMIM (Barcelona Municipal Institute of Medical Research).29 From a study of 95 healthy children born in Flix (Ribera d'Ebre) between 1997 and 1999, they observed that the ones who were breast-fed had concentrations of hexachlorobenzene (an organo-chlorate) that were three times higher than the others, but, at the same time, their level of neurobehavioral development was also higher. This was due to the fact that the nutrients in their mothers' milk provided benefits despite the cost of ingesting organo-chlorates as well. The study showed that children in the area, where the Ercros Industrial factory (formerly Erkimia) is located, have a lower than average level of neurobehavioral development compared to Catalonia as a whole. Studies are needed to find out if this is due to organo-chlorate levels or other causes (socio-economic level, other types of environmental exposure). If it can be shown that there is a relationship with the industrial activity, aside from taking action concerning the organo-chlorate levels, an economic cost assessment would need to be introduced in order to consider not just the possible benefits of factory installation location (creation of on-site jobs, indirect income).

The subject of exposure to pollutants such as lead and their effects leads us to the last point to be dealt with, i.e. socio-economic inequalities. Lead causes a lot more harm in low-income areas. As ever, it is necessary to consider other possible factors that may have an effect on the result although there does appear to be sufficient proof by now that it is the presence of this metal that causes a large number of these problems. This would suggest that environmental problems have a much more negative impact on the lower social classes.

The relationship between purchasing power and health and life expectancy has been extensively researched and differences occur both between countries and within the different regions of a particular country. 30 People with lower incomes are more exposed to infectious agents and the effects of pollution and they have less health care assistance and access to preventive measures and exploration. Moreover, certain habits or problems considered to be risk factors (smoking, alcoholism, obesity, under-nourishment, etc.) are also more widespread in these groups. The WHO, in its annual report in 1998, declared that poverty is the major cause of disease and premature death in the world.

Low socio-economic levels are connected with the incidence of environmental problems because cheaper housing is available in industrial areas and areas with other characteristics that expose them more to these problems. Exposure to pollution or inadequate hygiene conditions thus appears to be an inevitable fact for the levels of society that cannot afford to spend more on living somewhere else.

These groups however also face many other problems when it comes to taking measures to reduce exposure to risk factors. The increase in respiratory problems in the developing world would decrease substantially if families used stoves and fuel that were less polluting. It is not so much a question of pollution in the outside air but more of inside people's homes, which are often badly ventilated. One study carried out of 55 families in Kenya showed that exposure to particles of PM10 was, in extreme cases, up to 100 times higher than the levels recommended by the EPA, the US environment agency. The transfer of technology to replace stoves and basically for people to stop using coal or wood would have a positive effect on 2,000 million people around the world.31 In the case of India, where 80% of all homes use these types of fuel, interior domestic pollution causes half a million infant deaths per year. Seventy-five percent of exposure to pollutant particles occurs in rural areas of developing countries and this translates into 3 million deaths every year around the world,32 yet these people lack the resources to put alternatives into practice or to live in better-ventilated houses.

Conclusions

Bringing about the reduction in the damage that environmental changes cause to health means, in the first place, more research in order to have certain knowledge of the damage, and also action, even though there is only a certain amount of proof available or signs that are clear enough. It also means including the damage caused by certain products and activities in economic indicators in order for the cost to be brought nearer to what the real cost means for society. Lastly, the inequalities preventing most of humanity from having access to these benefits need to be reduced, given that many people cannot provide themselves with these from other sources or change their habits with the means at their disposal.

All of this is complex enough, although it is possible, at least partially. I began with a quote from Dickens' "Hard Times" and finish off with a reference to "Faust" by Goethe. One of the goals of the main character is the construction of a sea wall on the coast to transform the area into a garden "like Eden". The difficulties in carrying out the gigantic construction and the unperceived consequences are, for some, a warning by Goethe of the problems created by the Industrial Revolution and excessive economic growth. Faust believes that all of the obstacles can be overcome by applying man's knowledge and the current level of technological achievement, which turns out to be untrue.

Man has often believed that his level of technological and economic development lets him go on with extremely ambitious projects but when it comes down to attaining other goals, such as improving people's health and reducing mortality around the world, it is as if too many voices begin to clamour that this is a utopian operation that would either be unsuccessful or prohibitively expensive. This is perhaps a good time to set Faust's idea in motion, where almost everything is seen to be possible, and to try and make headway, no matter how little, in projects that are probably a lot more necessary than great engineering works. We should also not forget that while our actions can have a short-term positive or negative impact, the generations that come after ours' and the life of the species see the life span of each individual as being insignificant. As Hans C. Binswanger and Kirk R. Smith say in an article on Goethe's "Faust",33 in reference to an expression by Paracelsus (the dose makes the poison), "reducing dose rates sufficiently to protect individuals may not necessarily protect society indefinitely".


References

1 --C. Dickens: "Hard Times"
2 --Dockery, D.W. et al, The New England Journal of Medicine, 1993, 329: 1753-59
3 --Samet, J.M. et al: The New England Journal of Medicine, 2000, 343: 1742-49
4 --Pollution may be responsible for 9% of infant deaths in the United States, according to a study by the University of Basel (Switzerland) and the Harvard School of Public Health, presented at the annual meeting of the American Thoracic Society in San Francisco on 23 May 2001.
5 --McMichael, T. (2001): "Human frontiers, environments and disease. past patterns, uncertain futures", Cambridge University Press, p. 259
6 --"Technical Summary: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability", www.ipcc.ch. See also McMichael, op. cit, pp. 283-317.
7 --McMarthy, M.: "Uncertain impact of global warming on disease", The Lancet, 14-4-2001, 357: 1183.
8 --Lindgren, E. and Gustafson, R., The Lancet, 7-7-01, 358: 16-18
9 --Martens, P., "How Will Climate Change Affect Human Health?", American Scientist, Nov.-Dec., 1999, 87: 534-541
10 --Pascual, M., Rodó, X. et al.: "Cholera Dynamics and El Niño-Southern Oscillation", Science, 8-9-2000, 289: 1766-69
11 --McMichael, op. cit., pp. 68-70
12 --Paper presented at the American Psychiatric Association 19 May 1999. Quoted in the Otago Daily Times. Online Edition, 20-5-99
13 --Longnecker, M.P. et al, The Lancet, 14-7-01, 358: 110-114
14 --Braña, F.-J. (co-ord.) (1997): "Análisis económico de los estilos de vida: externalidades and coste social", Civitas, Madrid.
15 --Ibid, p. 30
16 --Le Monde, 28-7-01, p. 1
17 --El País, 27-7-01, p. 24
18 --Barendregt, J. J. et al.: "The health care costs of smoking", The New England Journal of Medicine, 1997, 337: 1052-57
19 --Hutton, G.: "Cost-effectiveness of environment health interventions", www.who.int/environmental_information/Disburden/WSH00-10
20 --Ibid, p. 74
21 --In some cases, the increase in cases of skin cancer may also be due to the migration of people with more sensitive skin and thus unadapted to places with more intense radiation.
22 --A paper on the relationship between the ultraviolet radiation gradient and multiple sclerosis can be found in McMichael, A.J. et al, "Epidemiology", 1997, 8: 642-645
23 --Cifuentes, L. et al: "Hidden Health Benefits of Greenhouse Gas Mitigation", Science, 17-8-01, 293: 1257-59
24 --"The particulate-related health benefits of reducing power plant emissions", Clean Air Task Force, Boston, 2000, www.cleartheair.org
25 --Mielke, H.W.: "Lead in the Inner Cities", American Scientist, January-February 1999, 87: 62-73.
26 --Thomas, V.M. et al, "Environmental Science & Technology", 1999, 33: 3942-48. Amongst other studies referring to Catalonia also included in this paper, see Domingo, J.L. et al. Science of Total Environment, 1996, 184: 203-209 and Environment International, 1995, 21: 821-825 and Rodamilans, M. et al, Bulletin of Environmental Pollution Toxicology, 1996, 56: 717-721
27 --"Rogan, W.J. et al, The New England Journal of Medicine, 10-5-01, 344: 1421-26
28 --Benkimoun, P., Le Monde, 30-6-2001, p. 20. A complete report can be found at: www.ineris.fr/
recherches/diesel/diesel.1htm
29 --Avui, 2-6-2001, p. 32.
30 --A very comprehensive paper is by Leon, D. and Walt, G. (pubs.): "Poverty, inequality and health. An international perspective", Oxford University Press, 2001.
31 --Ezzatti, M. and Kammen, D.M., The Lancet, 25-8-2001, 358: 619-624
32 --WHO, Press release/56, 14-9-2000
33 --"Paracelsus and Goethe: founding fathers of environmental health", Bulletin of World Health Organization, 2000, 78: 1162-64

 




Environment as a determining factor of health
Maria Rosa Girbau and Katy Salas
Lecturers at the Escola Universitària d'Infermeria (University College of Nursing), University of Barcelona

The state of the environment is a key factor for the well-being of both individuals and society as a whole. Moreover, many experts defend the idea that a suitable environment is a fundamental human right and this has been acknowledged by the Catalan Parliament. The writers of this article explain the hazards that are affecting the environment and that consequently pose a threat to people's health.


Up until the first half of the twentieth century, man paid little attention to the consequences of his impact on the environment and it was only after the Second World War that people began to be aware of the implications of man's actions on the environment and people's health.

Certain events, such as the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the oil crisis and the foreseeable depletion of other minerals, the destruction of the ozone layer, proof of climatic change, the hazardousness of many natural and synthetic products, unpredictable natural disasters, the new strain of Creutzfeldt Jakob disease, etc., have all made it very clear that indiscriminate action by man on the environment has a boomerang effect that directly works against man himself. The words of ecologist Ramon Margalef are poignantly fitting, "Maybe it is us who are the planetary cancer, and it is our quality of life and survival that are endangered and not that of planet Earth".

The environment has been considered a determining factor of people's health for many years although it was not until the 1970s that different models appeared to explain the causes of health impairment in inhabitants in the developed world. Some of these models pointed to the holistic component (Laframboise 1974) as being the cause of disease-related mortality while others referred to the ecological model (Austin and Werner 1973), and that of well-being (Travis 1977).

Regular advances were made concerning the genesis of contemporary diseases on the basis of these initial contributions and in 1974 the Canadian Minister of Health Marc Lalonde, who had worked on developing previous models, presented a report on the health of the population in Canada entitled "New perspectives on the health of the Canadian population". The report described genetic factors, environmental factors, lifestyle and the health system as being the main determinants. New concepts concerning the determinants of health have appeared in recent years and can be classified on five different levels: biological, physical and psychic determinants; lifestyle determinants; environmental and community determinants; physical environment, climate and environmental pollution determinants; and, lastly, the factors determining macrosocial structure, politics and a population's outlook on life.

The environment is thus clearly a fundamental element affecting the wellbeing of both individuals and society as a whole, which calls for a new kind of environmental awareness based on shared responsibility, which in turn involves a change in people's attitudes based on the principle of environmental solidarity.

In this respect, the Secretary General of the United Nations Organisation (UNO), Kofi Annan, at the World Summit on Social Development in 1995, contended that "a healthy society is one that takes care of its members and gives them the opportunity to participate in the decisions that affect their lives" and therefore their health.

At the same time, one should be aware that both social and economic well-being are concepts that progress in tandem with sustainable development although it is very clear that people are not sensitive to the question of environmental problems until these are defined and socially accepted, which shows the importance of the media in making people aware of the hazards.

From an initial overall view of the human being, health is understood to be a process of balance or harmony between the different dimensions that make up the individual and his or her external environment. Man is a key element in maintaining the necessary balance and it stands out that the physical, biological and social environment plays a highly important role in contemporary disease and illness (cardiovascular, respiratory, and digestive problems, cancer, allergies, spongiform disease, etc.), with new problems being generated in the realm of public health.

On the basis of these considerations, there is a need to involve the different institutional, social, political, economic and professional actors for it is these who ultimately are directly or indirectly responsible for people's health.

Historical background

The oldest known reference to the relationship between man and the environment dates from the 5th century BC. The Treatise on Airs, Waters and Places by Hippocrates (460-377 BC), states that, in order to understand health and disease, man must be studied in his normal state and in relation to the environment where he lives, together with the causes that have disturbed the balance between man and his external and social environment.

Hippocrates' ideas were applied to construe the environmental conditions of human life and they can thus be considered to be one of the earliest roots of human ecology, along with Aristotle's works on natural history.

This ecological approach has unfortunately not prevailed in the field of the health sciences that, for different reasons, have been highly influenced by physiology and the study of man's internal environment that began in France during the 19th century, and reinforced by the advances made in the 20th century in the field of diagnosis and therapy. At the same time, the role of the physical, psychic and social environment in the genesis of health or disease in man has been overlooked.

In 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in which the environment itself is not dealt with explicitly although note can be made of several of its articles in that they demonstrate institutional and governmental responsibility with respect to the protection of the individual.

Article 1 states that "All human beings… should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood". Here, the principle of solidarity is laid down.
Article 3 states that "Everyone has the right to... security of person", which therefore institutes the right to live with guarantees.
Article 6 states that "Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law". This can be understood to mean the right to be protected.
Article 21.1 states that "Everyone has the right to take part in the decision-making process...", which assumes that people must actively participate in decisions that may compromise their integrity.

From the second half of the 20th century onwards, the ecology movement, together with an increased awareness of environmental issues, led to the UNO taking initiatives and it was from this point on that a series of far-reaching international conferences began to be held. The first world summit, known as "Only One Earth", was held in Stockholm in 1972, with the object of assessing the hazards resulting from pollution of the human environment. The bases for achieving international agreement on issues involving the environment were established here, and it also led to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) being established.

The differences and difficulties in reaching global agreements on the problems affecting both rich and poor countries, which still persist today, became evident at this international summit where Indira Gandhi is attributed with saying, "environmental problems in the developing countries are not the collateral effects of excessive industrialisation but a reflection of the inadequacy of development".

At the 30th World Health Assembly in the city of Alma-Ata (1977), the World Health Organisation (WHO) agreed to draw up a series of objectives for achieving health for all by the year 2000, amongst which appeared the preservation of the environment. In 1984, the European Regional Office drew up a list of 38 objectives, corresponding to Europe, that made explicit reference to the creation of healthy environments (objectives nos. 18 to 25).

Various other global conferences were held during the 1990s, including the International Conference on Health Promotion (Ottawa, 1986), the Montreal Protocol (1987) on the protection of the ozone layer; the Sundswall Conference (Sweden, 1991), and several preparatory ones preceding the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, with the sole objective of making progress in the knowledge of environmental hazards.

The purpose of the Rio Summit (1992), or "Earth Summit" as it is known, was to achieve a balance between social and economic needs and environmental needs, and three fundamental documents were drawn up:

  • Agenda 21, considered to be a declaration of principles based on a world plan of action for promoting sustainable development.
  • The document on Climatic Change, with the objective of reducing the gases responsible for the greenhouse effect.
  • The document on Biological Diversity, which exhorted countries to undertake measures to conserve plant and animal species, with a series of directives on the most sustainable ways of managing forests.


The "Earth Summit + 5" was held in New York in 1997, with the purpose of determining and recognising the objectives achieved in applying the agreements reached in Rio.

As far as Climatic Change is concerned, summits have been held in Kyoto (Japan, 1997), The Hague (2000) and Bonn (2001), with somewhat disappointing results.

Other interesting initiatives that have reinforced some of the proposals presented at the different international forums include the reports presented by the Club of Rome in 1972, including the one entitled "The limits of growth", which was updated in 1992 with the title "Beyond the limits of growth".

Also worthy of mention is the Brundtland Report (1987), which expounded the idea of "meeting present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs", and established the relationship between sustainable development and economic systems.

An example of a local level project is the one by the Barcelona City Hall known as Barcelona Agenda 21, in which the commitments to face the new environmental challenges of the 21st century, together with the social, urban and economic development of the city in a sustainable way with the environment, are made manifest.

Risks associated with unsustainable development

Man's egocentric activities imply a potential risk to the health of both individuals and society as a whole in that the environment in which we live is highly dynamic due to the action of different cycles (carbon, nitrogen, water, etc.). It is also highly complex because there is an exchange of energy and matter and, at the same time, a constant interrelationship of elements on the different gradients or levels in nature, and the effects of man can break the fragile balance of the environment and endanger its integrity.

The possibility therefore of man being able to live in healthy conditions depends on his ability to adapt to changing conditions, and this ability is related to physical, biological and social factors.

In general terms, pollution can be defined as the alteration of the properties of an environment due to the incorporation, generally as a result of the direct or indirect action of man, of particles, gas compounds, disturbances, materials or radiation that lead to modifications in the structure and function of the ecosystems affected.

When asking the question of what the potential risks to health are, certain factors need to be taken into account which are closely linked to how serious the effect is, such as:

  • the characteristics and degree of solubility of pollutants
  • the quantity of substance or pathogen
  • the period of exposure to risk
  • the mechanisms of action or toxicodynamics
  • the defence mechanisms of the affected organ and/or tissue
  • the entry route and subsequent transformation of the substance
  • immunity characteristics, and other variables that make the individual more susceptible, such as age, previous pathologies, etc.

Atmosphere

The atmosphere is the layer of gas that forms a sphere surrounding the Earth. It is made up of a mixture of gases in variable proportions according to altitude (troposphere, stratosphere, mesosphere and thermosphere) and is responsible for the temperature.

Atmospheric pollution is the degradation of the layer of gases due to the increase of elements that are normally present or by the presence of substances and/or particles that are foreign to its normal composition. Air pollution is a process that begins with gas and/or particle emissions and man has been exposed to it since the discovery of fire, although unsustainable development has increased the quantity and quality of polluting agents and today affects both industrialised and developing countries.

The presence of pollutants in the atmosphere may be the result of natural causes such as volcanic eruptions, soil erosion, sand storms, earthquakes, anaerobic fermentation processes, plant pollination, etc. and/or anthropogenic and/or artificial causes, such as road traffic, industrial processes and power stations, domestic and industrial heating, waste incineration, nuclear testing, war, etc.

Man ingests different harmful elements by way of the respiratory tract (into the lungs by inhaling), by contact with the skin (cutaneously) and orally (by direct or indirect ingestion).

Inhalation: Gases, vapour, aerosols and particles in suspension can all penetrate the respiratory organs. Size and shape, together with an individual's respiratory parameters determine the levels of pollutant absorption and penetration to the deeper respiratory tracts.

Skin contact:
Many substances can penetrate the skin, such as biocides and organic solvents. Factors to be taken into account are the condition of the skin (erosion of the skin makes absorption easier), body temperature and peripheral circulation (an increase in these leads to higher absorption).

Oral ingestion: This is the most frequent way that pollutant substances found in drinking water enter the body.
These substances are mainly metabolised by the liver, kidneys, lungs, skin and the gastrointestinal tract, with elimination occurring mainly via the urine and bile. The elimination of volatile and gaseous substances is by way of exhaling.

There are numerous effects of air pollution and it is both difficult to quantify them and to establish causal relationships. Mention should be made, however, of the fact that they are especially dangerous for people with chronic pulmonary illness (emphysema, bronchitis, asthma), for the elderly and for babies. According to the WHO, between 30-40% of the cases of asthma and 20-30% of all respiratory problems may be related to air pollution in certain towns and cities, and it is considered to be one of the main causes reducing life expectancy in general, together with non-disabled life expectancy.

Some of the most significant aspects due to its effects on health are as follows:


  • Carbon monoxide (CO): non-water soluble in the mucous membranes of the respiratory apparatus, which facilitates its ability to penetrate the alveolar walls, with a great affinity for one of the four iron atoms in the haemoglobin molecule (210-240 times more than oxygen molecules), which transforms it into carboxyhaemoglobin. This interferes with the correct exchange of gases in the capillaries and produces anoxia due to lack of O2.
    Clinical manifestations include cephalalgia, dizziness, faintness, nausea and vomiting. Serious intoxication can lead to cardiac irregularities due to myocardial ischemia, which can cause angor and infarct; neurological disturbances with obnubilation and coma; cutaneous irregularities, with pallor and cyanosis; and psychomotor dysfunctions with co-ordination impairment.

  • Sulphur oxides (SOx): water-soluble, which facilitates absorption in the upper sections of the respiratory tract, causing irritation of the mucous membranes and bronchial constriction. Clinical manifestations may worsen if they interact synergically with other particles in suspension in the atmosphere, which facilitates penetration to the alveola. They also stimulate the taste and smell senses.

  • Nitrogen oxides (NOx): non-water soluble in the mucous membranes of the respiratory apparatus, these penetrate the alveolar walls, where they combine with haemoglobin (Hb) and are transformed into nitrosamines with carcinogenic properties. Clinical manifestations include irritation of the mucous membranes, pulmonary edema, chronic pulmonary fibrosis and death due to asphyxia.

  • Tropospheric ozone (O3): a secondary pollutant formed by the action of ultraviolet radiation on the oxygen molecules, which transform by dissociation into two reactive atoms that subsequently combine together with other oxygen molecules to form an ozone molecule. It is insoluble, which facilitates penetration in the respiratory tract. Clinical manifestations include irritation of the mucous membranes, dry throat, cephalalgia, fatigue, decline, an increased breathing rate, a decrease in the pulmonary function, and it is even related to a decrease in the ability to concentrate.

  • Solid particles: the degree to which these have an effect is in relation to their ability to penetrate the pulmonary cavities, which has to do with molecular size and their affinity with the humidity of the air. They can act as inert particle deposits on the alveolar walls, which hinders gaseous exchange. They can also affect people through the ingestion of foodstuffs made of ingredients affected by particles that have been absorbed by plant life through dry deposition.

  • Others: such as fluorides, lead, mercury, cadmium and asbestos. As a result of their ability to volatilise, they are absorbed by breathing and can lead to irritation of the mucous membranes and respiratory difficulties. Some, like asbestos, are potentially carcinogenic.


With respect to the effects on the atmosphere, mention must be made of the influence of carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), methane (CH4), chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) and ozone (O3) on the greenhouse effect. This is the increase in temperature due to the presence of gases in the layers of the atmosphere that prevent infrared (long wavelength) radiation from escaping out into space, which contributes to the warming of the atmosphere.

Its effects on health are linked to shifts in the increase of average air temperature, with alterations to ecosystems and loss of biodiversity. This therefore hinders the availability of food resources, the destruction of natural habitats due to the increase in sea-level (which in turn contributes to human migrations) and an increase in diseases transmitted by vectors (malaria), due to the increase in humidity.

Predictions are constantly being made in order to assess the impact according to the different potential scenarios (population, radiation, humidity, precipitation, erosion, agriculture, forests, absorption mechanisms in plants and oceans, etc.).

The presence of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the layers of the atmosphere causes depletion of the ozone layer situated in the stratosphere and formed of O3. The depletion of this layer is produced by the action of CFCs, which are highly volatile and chemically stable gases used in refrigeration units, pesticides, air conditioning, aerosols, foam, etc. On reaching the stratosphere, they are broken down by the action of ultraviolet rays and give off chlorine and bromide molecules that destroy the ozone.

This layer is vital for living beings in that it protects them from the sun's ultraviolet radiation. The decrease in stratospheric ozone is connected with the appearance of melanomas, cataracts and inhibition of the immune system.

Other harmful effects are due to acid rain, which leads to the acidification of the components in ecosystems; temperature inversions, which impede the vertical circulation of pollutants and their dispersion; and photochemical smog, with clinical manifestations in the form of coughs, nose and throat irritation, bronchial constriction, visual impairment and inability to concentrate.

The vulnerability of plants to atmospheric pollution must also be taken into account. They can suffer from growth retardation, yellowing of the leaves and death in extreme situations. Animals as well are vulnerable and they can undergo a decline in productivity, breeding irregularities and death by poisoning on ingesting contaminated plant matter.

The most outstanding material effects are the social consequences of the loss of architectural and artistic heritage, together with the cost of restoration and maintenance of damaged structures.

Water

Water is essential for life. All living beings are made predominantly of water and it is the most abundant substance on the planet, two thirds of which is covered with water. 97% is found in liquid form in the ocean, 2.25% is in a solid state in the ice caps, glaciers and in the form of snow, a small quantity occurs in the form of vapour in the atmosphere and a mere 0.75% is fresh water apt for human consumption when it is not polluted, in rivers, lakes and underground aquifers.

A human being can survive with between 2.5 to 5 litres of water per day. However, the demand in industrial societies can reach 500 litres per person per day, taking into account all types of use and is also the most demanding in terms of quality. The growing demand increasingly reduces the time taken between the disposal of water supplied and the next time it is used. The problem is thus one of quality and quantity.

In historical terms, water has played a very important role in the health of the world's societies. 80% of all illnesses in the world are directly or indirectly related to water (due to floods; drought; the transmission of epidemics such as cholera and other diarrhoea-causing illnesses; as a habitat for insects that transmit diseases such as malaria, dengue, Rift Valley fever, etc.).
On the other hand, the introduction of personal hygiene, public sanitation and advances made in microbiology have made an enormous contribution to improving the quality of life and health of the world's population.

Water is therefore a precious and scarce asset. So much so, in fact, that the European Water Charter was proclaimed in Strasbourg in 1968. Point 1 states that "there is no life without water and it is a treasure indispensable to all human activity". It ends with point 12 that states that "Water knows no frontiers: as a common resource it demands international co-operation".

Sources of water pollution

Polluted water is hereby understood to mean water containing substances that are alien to the natural composition of water and/or micro-organisms that may represent a hazard to people. In this case, it cannot be used for drinking, cooking, irrigating crops, or in the food industries.

  • Pollution of urban origin: this results from all of the activities in a town or city used fundamentally for domestic, commercial, small industry, public infrastructure and transport purposes. This type of waste water may carry a biological and chemical load.

  • Pollution of industrial origin: given the wide variety of different industrial processes, waste water originating here may contain a chemical load (heavy metals, various types of compound, etc.), a physical load (increase in temperature, radioactivity) and a microbiological load (bacteria, viruses, fungi, etc.). In spite of environmental protection laws, the disposal of industrial waste water continues to present a high risk for rivers, lakes and the sea, and thus for human health.

  • Pollution of agricultural origin: the great increase in the use of chemical fertilisers to make crops more profitable, together with all types of biocides to prevent plagues and disease from affecting plants, has led to a great increase in the pollution of run-off water and groundwater.

  • Pollution of livestock origin: liquid manure that is generated on today's intensive livestock farms is a real problem in terms of elimination due to the high content of nitrogen and other compounds, together with the microbiological load.

  • Marine pollution: considering that coastlines are often highly built up and industrialised areas, the waste water from these areas is the main source of pollution constantly affecting marine waters but not the only one. The maritime transport of passengers and goods is the other source that all too often has been the origin of important ecological disasters, such as spills of oil and other hazardous substances into the sea due to accidents, or the cleaning of tanks at high sea by oil tankers (which quite naturally is prohibited).

Types of pollutants

Pollutants in water can be biological, chemical and physical.

Biological pollutants: these are microbiological agents capable of causing infectious diseases in man and animals. They can be classified as:

  • Bacteria: such as, for example, Vibrio Cholerae that produces cholera, an infectious disease that causes vomiting, fluid evacuations that are similar to rice water, acidosis and muscular cramps; Salmonella typhi, which causes typhoid fever that comes on with the sudden appearance of fever, asthenia, exanthema in the thorax and abdomen, hepatosplenomegaly, and diarrhoea, as well as unconsciousness, and other types of salmonellosis, etc.
  • Viruses: such as, for example, the hepatitis A virus, an infectious disease that spreads by orofecal transmission, with a period of incubation of between 15 and 60 days and produces fever, symptoms of discomfort and non-specific digestive disorders and jaundice. It is endemic to the Mediterranean basin. Enteroviruses: these cause digestive irregularities. Adenoviruses: these cause adenoidal and amygdaloid irregularities. Reoviruses: these can cause intestinal and/or respiratory irregularities.
  • Parasites: such as, for example, various types of amoebiasis, that cause a dysentery-type syndrome that can subsequently spread and affect other organs like the liver, lungs, kidneys, brain, etc, with amoebic abscesses being produced. Helminthiasis (due to intestinal worms) can occur in different phases of its life cycle (egg, larva, adult, etc.).
  • Fungi: these reproduce by way of spores and some may be pathogens for man and animals. They live in humid conditions, such as, for example, around the edges of public swimming pools or on the ground where there are public showers (athlete's foot).

Chemical pollutants: these are chemical elements or compounds found in water from different sources that may be toxic for human beings, animals, and aquatic flora. Contact is either by ingestion of contaminated water, through the skin and/or mucous membranes, especially if these are impaired in any way (wounds, cuts, erosion, etc.), and by inhaling vapours or aerosols.
The repercussions that a particular chemical substance can have on a person's health will depend on: its chemical form, its concentration, the form of contact, the transformations it may undergo, either due to reaction with other substances or processes of accumulation in the food chain, and the susceptibility of the individual or group.

The most common pollutants are:

Nitrates: the concentration in surface waters is usually below 5 mgr/litre. These concentrations can be much higher in groundwater. Direct consumption or food preparations for babies (feeding bottles) using water with high nitrate concentrations can cause methaemoglobinaemia (cyanosis due to hypoxia).

Fluorides: These are salts used in a wide number of industrial processes, in chemical synthesis, insecticides, pesticides and rodenticides. While fluoride is considered to be essential in preventing dental decay, in high concentrations it can lead to fluorosis, which is characterised by loss of weight, brittle bones, anuria, aesthenia, general discomfort, rigid joints, and discoloration of teeth in the formation stage.

Mercury, lead, cadmium, nickel and other metals: these are highly toxic and in general they tend to accumulate. Minamata disease (from the bay in Japan) is a serious and complex set of toxic symptoms, with nervous and psychic disorders due to the ingestion of mercury in the sea and/or water polluted by spillage from vinyl chloride industries. Saturnism is acute or chronic lead (or lead salt) poisoning and can be extremely serious. Cadmium can be found in water as a result of industrial spills and plastic and metal piping.

Arsenic: Therapy using arsenic has been used for over 3000 years although it is also a very well known poison (it is merely a question of dosage) that is highly toxic, produces vomiting, diarrhoea, the breakdown of fat in the liver, and weakness in the limbs and even paralysis.

Selenium: certain selenium salts, such as selenium sulphide, are used as a topical antimycotic for treating ringworm, as a keratolitic and in scalp disorders (seborrheic dermatitis and dandruff). In large doses it is highly toxic.
Organo-chlorate compounds: these are compounds found in insecticides, pesticides, the best known being DDT, aldrin and endosulphan. They are liposoluble and tend to accumulate. DDT has been found in the layer of body fat in penguins in the Antarctic.

Hydrocarbons: Numerous hydrocarbons, particularly benzopyrenes (which are potentially carcinogenic), have been found in seawater; they have a low solubility in fresh water although this can increase with the presence of anionic detergents (surfactants). These produce foam in the turbulent stretches of rivers and obstruct waste water treatment processes and the natural purification of currents. It has been compulsory for detergents to be biodegradable since 1960.

Physical pollution: the temperature of water varies according to the season of the year although if it is used as a coolant (in thermal power stations and nuclear power stations), the increase in temperature leads to an increase in solubility and alters the biological processes that take place in it (colonies of legionella can form in the open part of cooling towers for they need a certain temperature).

Radioactivity can occur in water for natural reasons (radioactive elements in the lithosphere) although it is normally found as a result of the radioactive activities developed by man.

Waste water treatment:

The large demographic increase, industrialisation and the intensification of livestock breeding and agriculture that occurred during the 20th century have, as a whole, by far exceeded the natural purification capacity of the water cycle, as a result of which water has to be treated artificially.

There are various processing techniques in waste water treatment plants, and these are either physico-chemical and/or biological.

Physico-chemical processing: in schematic terms, this consists of the initial filtering of coarse material, a second filtering of smaller material, a flocculation process (with ferrous sulphate or aluminium chloride), a sedimentation process and lastly a sand bed filtering process and then disposal into a river or sea by way of an ocean outfall at a distance of various kilometres from the coast.

In the case of waste water treatment plants, a preliminary chlorinating process is carried out after filtering to reduce the microbiological load. The sand bed may be replaced by an active carbon bed (that has a high absorption capacity) in the last phase, together with an oxidation process using added ozone, and a final chlorinating process that makes it apt for distribution to the mains network.

Biological processing is based on imitating natural purification. It basically consists of filtering, with the water being passed through pools of active clay (that contain bacteria capable of breaking down the organic material) and fat separators. It is then subjected to a sedimentation process and finally a decanting process.

Waste

Considering that the soil plays a key role in the exchange of material and energy and acts as an active receptor of all of the components in the air and in water, waste constitutes a reservoir of micro-organisms that are potentially hazardous and capable of infecting the population in general.

Man is an important factor that alters the dynamics of the soil, with waste being uncontrollably dumped on the environment as a consequence of the consumer model that modern day society has mistakenly chosen and considers to be the product of wellbeing.

There are many causes for the increase in waste that is turning the planet into a gigantic landfill site. This phenomenon is both of great concern and dangerous because eliminating, processing and recycling waste may compromise people's quality of life and impede the sustainable development that is so avidly sought after.

From this perspective, it is important to understand the main causes for the increase in urban waste in order to try and modify consumer attitudes, reduce the volume of waste at source, and encourage waste reuse, recycling and exploitation.

These causes include:

  • Hygiene and health needs, which have led to a spectacular increase in the use of packaging and wrapping to prevent the risk of contamination in handling and incorrect storage.
  • The change of eating habits, with an increase in the consumption of fast and pre-cooked food.
  • Urban growth due to migration from rural areas, together with the demand for services and an increase in consumption.
  • The consumer society, with its "use and throw away" habits, and an increase in the use of paper, glass, plastic, cans, PVC, etc.


At the present time, five million people die every year as a result of diseases connected with waste and a thousand million people are lacking any type of garbage collection service. This is particularly serious in the developing countries and makes the world's population highly vulnerable to different pathogenic micro-organisms through the food chain or by direct contact.

Helminthiasis, salmonellosis, ancylostomiasis, anthrax, leptospirosis, tetanus, opportunistic mycoses, and toxoplasmosis, are just some of the diseases that human beings can contract this way.

Different types of waste (urban and municipal, industrial, radioactive and clinical) are generated by human activities, and the risk that they present depends on the characteristics of the waste and how it is processed. From the public health point of view, however, care needs to be taken with the ways that waste is eliminated in order to guarantee that it is totally harmless during collection, transportation and final disposal.

Selective collection (of glass, paper, plastic, cans, tetra brik aseptic cartons, organic waste, medicaments, batteries, fluorescent light bulbs, oil, domestic appliances): this is the most plausible means of recovery because it reduces the volume of municipal waste, the consumption of energy, water and raw materials, gas emissions, the consumption of chemical fertilisers, it reduces pressure on landfill sites and incineration, it impedes the presence of vectors and reservoirs (rodents, fleas, arthropodae), and provides social benefits by creating jobs in the recycling industry.

Different ways of eliminating waste are as follows:

  • Controlled landfills: this entails difficulties, such as finding new spaces where they can be located at a reasonable cost, places that are geologically adequate and also willingly accepted by the neighbourhood.
  • Incineration: this way of partially eliminating waste is not totally risk-free for public health because potentially carcinogenic substances like dioxins are emitted into the atmosphere. A large proportion of clinical waste contains chlorine, an element that remains undestroyed and forms hydrochloric acid which can pollute the atmosphere.
  • Underground confinement and tanks: radioactive waste in Spain, particularly that produced by nuclear power stations, is managed by the firm ENRESA. The risks involved with this elimination technique are difficult to assess because little is known about the long-term effects (radioactive particles have a very long half-life).

Noise as a source of pollution

Sound is the sensation that an animal perceives by way of its hearing as a result of a disturbance in the pressure and density in the material environment that surrounds it (gas, liquid and/or solid), caused by a vibration that spreads out in the form of a sound wave.

Two characteristics of sound are particularly interesting here:


1. Intensity: the degree of loudness of the acoustic vibration or pressure, together with the alteration that is produced in the air. It is measured in terms of dB (decibel) units. The measurement scale is logarithmic, as to an arithmetic one, which means that an increase of 3dB is equivalent to doubling the intensity of the perceived sound.

The maximum permitted level, according to legislation in Spain, is 85dB over 8 working hours. Measures must be taken to reduce noise above this level.

The threshold level for hearing in human beings (young people) is above 0, and the pain threshold is 125dB.

2. Frequency: this is the number of vibrations or cycles produced per second. This is what is known as pitch, which goes from very low frequencies (low pitch) to high frequencies (high pitch). The vibrations are measured in Hz (Hertz). The human ear (a young person) can hear deep sounds from 20Hz (frequencies below these are known as infrasound), at the lower end, and up to 20,000Hz (above these are the ultrasounds) at the high end.


Sound is one of the main forms of communication between animals and human beings but it turns into noise when we perceive it as being uncomfortable or when it produces a sensation of anxiety or repulsion; it can even cause pain. The unpleasant sensation that is perceived can produce a subjective (individual or cultural) and/or objective (well-informed) disturbance to a person's physiology and behaviour that is/are observable and/or measurable.

From the point of view of public health, continual exposure to noise both at and away from work has become so important that a Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem was held in Washington in 1974. Two years prior to this in 1972, it was recognised as being a pollutant of the first magnitude at the Environment Summit held by the United Nations in Stockholm. The WHO has estimated that there are 120 million people in the world who have disabling hearing difficulties.

Noise forms part of most activities in urban life and this holds true for the past as well as the present. In ancient Rome, as well as in medieval cities, regulations existed to control both carriage transit and working activities that were a nuisance to the inhabitants.

With industrialisation, the sources of noise pollution have increased in quantity and variety. The main ones are: the transportation of people and goods in both developed countries and large cities in the developing world (cars, motorcycles, buses, coaches, trucks, conventional and high speed trains, and planes), industry (machinery in operation), the building and public works sector, leisure and entertainment installations (bars, discotheques, open air restaurants, etc.), noise in the home (domestic appliances, radio, TV, hi-fi, air conditioning, lifts, etc.) and in offices (printers, photocopiers, drinks machines, etc.).

The harmful effects of noise:

Aside from being a nuisance, noise is also a risk to health. The effects of noise can be divided as follows:

a) Specific effects on the hearing organ, b) effects on the physiology or functioning of the rest of the organism, c) effects on behaviour and activity.
a)

  • Continuous exposure (8 working hours) to noise louder than 85-90 dB constitutes a high risk of deafness at work that in general is bilateral and irreversible in the frequency bands of this type of noise.
  • Occasional exposure to loud noise (95-100dB) of different frequencies similar to discotheque music produces what is known as hearing fatigue. This causes a temporary loss of hearing ability, with the recovery time being directly proportional to the time of exposure.
  • Exposure to a sudden short noise (pistol shot, firecracker, hammer blow, a bomb explosion or a gas bottle explosion, for example) can produce a hearing trauma that causes total deafness if it is loud enough and if the individual affected is close to the source. This is a result of the mechanisms of perception of the vibration and transmission of the nervous impulse being affected, and is more or less reversible.


b) Continuous exposure to noise is described as being able to cause arterial hypertension or ischemic cardiopathy in the cardiovascular system. In the respiratory organs, it can produce apnea when the noise is sudden and tachypnea (an increase in the respiratory rate) when it is continuous.

Symptoms affecting the digestive system include a reduction in saliva secretion, vulnerability to gastric ulcers, a decrease in intestinal peristalsis, sluggish digestion, and nausea including vomiting.
Increased secretions of cortisone and adrenaline can occur in the endocrine system. This is of special importance to pregnant women as it can lead to a decreased irrigation in the womb and placenta, with an increase in the cardiac rate of the foetus. The possibility of an increase in glycemia has also been described.

Sound can affect the central nervous system in the form of insomnia, anxiety, irritability and a decrease in the ability to concentrate.

Eyesight problems have also been observed, with a decrease in the field of vision, difficulties in distinguishing colours and a decrease in night vision, which may represent a hazard when driving.

  • Impairment of balance due to dizziness.
  • Increase in muscular tension.
  • Increase in skin sensitivity.

c) As far as behaviour and activity are concerned, it is a fact that a noisy environment impedes interpersonal oral communication. People become more nervous and aggressive, they show signs of fatigue and emotional lability.
Background noise makes concentration and learning difficult. The risk of making errors increases at work, together with the likelihood of a higher accident rate.

Emphasis must be placed on the individual and cultural variability that exists in perceiving sound as noise and in the effects it has on health.

Preventive measures:

Different types of measure can be adopted:

  • Technical: insulation at source (machinery can be insulated inside cabins; shock absorbers can be used to reduce vibration; screens can be used to separate them, etc.). Protection for people (helmets, earphones or earplugs). Buildings (both working premises and housing can be built with insulation materials, and carpets, curtains, wall hangings, etc. used to deaden sound as well as being decorative).

  • Legislation: the drawing up of national, regional and municipal regulations on noise generated by different sources.

  • Education is perhaps the most effective way of avoiding unnecessary noise at its source. The benefits of educating people to respect the environment are there for all because the behaviour of society as a whole is the sum of all individual behaviour.
    We believe, however, that the best strategy would be to incorporate new consumer values in society and to develop attitudes that are much more respectful of the environment in order to be able to continue to enjoy this precious treasure that we have been given in the future. As Einstein used to say, "An intelligent man is one who solves problems, a wise man is one who avoids them".

Bibliography

  • FOLCH R. Planeta Viu. Barcelona: Fundació Enciclopèdia Catalana; 1998.
  • GIRBAU Mª R., SALAS K. Salut i Medi Ambient. Text-Guia. Barcelona: Edicions Universitat de Barcelona; 2000.
  • LUDEVID M. El canvi global en el medi ambient. Barcelona: Proa-Universitat Pompeu Fabra; 1995.
  • W.H.O. Pollution de l'Aire. Aide-Mémoire Nº 187. October 2000. Available at: http://www.who.int/inf-fs/fr/am187.html
  • W.H.O. Les Déchets Liés aux soins de sante. Aide-Mémoire Nº 253. September 2000. Available at: http://www.who.int/inf-fs/fr/am253.html
  • W.H.O. Rapport Annuel du Comité Européen de l'Environnement et de la Santé (CEES). Comité Regional de l'Europe. 13 September 2001.
  • W.H.O. Résumé d'orientations des Directives de l'OMS relatives au bruit dans l'environnement. Available at: http://www.who.int/environmental
  • W.H.O. Le bruit au travail et le bruit ambient. Aide-Mémoire Nº 258. Available at: http://www.who.int/inf-fs
  • PIEDROLA G. Medicina preventiva y salud pública. 10th ed. Barcelona: Masson-Salvat Medicina; 2001.
  • TÀBARA D. La percepció dels problemes del medi ambient. Barcelona: Beta Editorial-Generalitat de Catalunya; 1996

 




Influence of the Environment on the Relationships between Food and Health
Abel Mariné Font and
M. Carmen Vidal Carou
Departament de Nutrició i Bromatologia. Universitat de Barcelona (Department of Nutrition and Bromatology. University of Barcelona)

Food is one more link in the environmental chain and is therefore subject to the negative effects of pollution. There are positive interactions as well, but today consumers are concerned with the safety or innocuousness of the food they eat. The authors describe the main contaminants, they introduce the concept of the risk/benefit balance and they offer assurances that, in general, the food we eat is reasonably safe.

1. Introduction

"If I listened to everyone, the solution would be to not eat anything, and that certainly isn't good"
(J. Mª Espinàs)

The environment has an inevitable influence on food that is often positive but at other times is negative. This interaction, in addition to reasons of availability, could have cultural repercussions in regard to the choice of nutritional food as, for example, possible deficits associated with a certain geographical area, as well as toxicological deficits due to the potential presence of contaminants or, more generally, xenobiotics1 in food. Despite it being undeniable that the environment is the main provider of xenobiotics in our food, it should also be remembered that some of them, especially vegetables, naturally contain microcomponents that, in relatively high doses and/or under certain conditions, could give rise to undesirable and even toxic effects on consumers.

When considering the relationship between food and the environment, the first thing one thinks of is just the negative effect. Certainly, environmental pollution is an important problem today that requires specific action, and the fact that food is in fact another link in the environmental chain make it impossible to isolate it from this pollution. It would not be fair, however, to fail to recognize that environmental influences on our food go well beyond this, and not just with negative connotations, but in many cases there are positive interactions as well.

When food is valued, consideration is given not only to nutritional value and sensory or organoleptic2 qualities, rather, and above all, its safety must be guaranteed, which means it must be innocuous. In fact, safety has always been a condition closely linked to food, in the sense that, because it is considered as such, it must not produce any type of undesirable effect on consumers (as long as consumption is rational).

Currently, our developed society shows great concern for health and, along these lines, once the multiple relationships existing between food and health are acknowledged, interest, and sometimes even anxiety, is sparked by all matters affecting, more or less reliably, food safety. Obviously we cannot sit before a plate of food and think about all it could contain that could be harmful to our health. In the same way, it makes no sense to sit before each meal with a calculator in order to make sure that the combination of products chosen covers all nutritional needs. Surely the probability of suffering undesirable psychological consequences due to this type of behaviour is greater than the risk this behaviour tries to prevent. In fact, as pointed out by Bello et al. (2000), "concern for the safety of what is consumed has accompanied man from his first steps on this planet. Therefore, throughout history, man has been making a selection of raw food materials to provide him with a healthy state of wellbeing, while rejecting others that caused undesirable effects".

From this perspective, one can understand that every new food raises suspicion and distrust while, on the other hand, what has always been around -classic and traditional foods- inspire greater trust. Therefore, consumers find themselves faced, against traditional safety, with the uncertainty of possible risks associated with technologies applied to improve animal and vegetable production, all this without forgetting that food production cannot be isolated from the existence of a degree of environmental pollution that is hardly to be undervalued.

Bello et al (2000) point out that the concept of food contamination has yet to be given a concrete, satisfactory definition, to the point where its meaning can vary from one country to another. Therefore, in this article we will see that many possibilities fit under the heading of contaminant, not only in regard to structure or chemical nature, but also according to its origins, contamination routes, level of "danger" to human beings, etc.

2. Influence of the environment on food

The relationships between environment and food can be approached from different points of view:


a) the environment influences the selection of foods
b) the environment determines the type of foods available in a certain geographical area, which in turn strongly conditions eating habits.
c) the environment can affect the nutritional composition of food (especially micronutrients).3
d) the environment can be a direct or indirect source of food contamination.


Climate, temperature, sunshine, ambient humidity… all are highly influential in the type of food available to make up a diet or portions. There is no need to search in far-away countries, as this can be seen even within Spain, where the dietary peculiarities of the north and the south respond to their respective environmental conditions. So for example, a preference for vegetables in the south, compared to the dietary habits in the north, is a reflection of this question. Even within one geographic area there can be noticeable differences in food uses between urban or rural areas. But if climate and the environment in general are important factors in choosing food, they may be even more important in