University of Vermont study: Why people reject city trees

13 Jan

The Nature Conservancy published How Urban Trees Can Save Lives:

The Planting Healthy Air report documents which cities stand to benefit most from tree plantings, in terms of both heat and PM reduction, and how much investment would be required to achieve meaningful benefits.
The analysis found that investing just US$4 per resident in each of these cities in tree planting efforts could improve the health of millions of people, and that trees are as cost-effective as many other common solutions.
Most of the cooling and filtering effects created by trees are fairly localized, so densely populated cities—as well as those with higher overall pollution levels—tend to see the highest overall return on investment (ROI) from tree plantings…. https://global.nature.org/content/healthyair

Exeter University reported that asthma attacks were reduced in tree-lined urban areas.

Science Daily reported in Asthma attacks reduced in tree-lined urban neighborhoods:

People living in polluted urban areas are far less likely to be admitted to hospital with asthma when there are lots of trees in their neighbourhood, a study by the University of Exeter’s medical school has found.
The study into the impact of urban greenery on asthma suggests that respiratory health can be improved by the expansion of tree cover in very polluted urban neighbourhoods.
The study, published in the journal Environment International, looked at more than 650,000 serious asthma attacks over a 15 year period. Emergency hospitalisations were compared across 26,000 urban neighbourhoods in England.
In the most polluted urban areas, trees had a particularly strong association with fewer emergency asthma cases. In relatively unpolluted urban neighbourhoods trees did not have the same impact.
In a typical urban area with a high level of background air pollution — for example, around 15 micrograms of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) per cubic metre, or a nitrogen dioxide concentration around 33 micrograms per cubic metre — an extra 300 trees per square kilometre was associated with around 50 fewer emergency asthma cases per 100,000 residents over the 15 year study period.
The findings could have important implications for planning and public health policy, and suggest that tree planting could play a role in reducing the effects of air pollution from cars.
Over 5.4 million people receive treatment for asthma in the UK with an annual cost to the NHS of around £1 billion. 18 per cent of adults report asthma in the previous 12 months, and a quarter of 13-14 year olds report symptoms. Asthma causes over a thousand deaths a year.
The study led by Dr Ian Alcock, research fellow at the University of Exeter’s Medical School, found that trees and green space were both related to a decrease in people admitted to hospital with asthma…. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171117103814.ht

Urban trees can affect the quality of life and health.

Science Daily reported in Why people reject city trees: Study explains why thousands of Detroit residents rejected city’s tree planting efforts:

Trees are a hallmark of vibrant neighborhoods. So why did nearly one-quarter of eligible residents in Detroit, Michigan, turn down free street trees? That’s the mystery University of Vermont researcher Christine Carmichael solves in one of the first studies to explore opposition to city tree planting programs.
As cities from New York to L.A. embark on major tree planting initiatives, the research helps to explain why more than 1,800 of 7,425 eligible Detroit residents — roughly 25% — submitted “no-tree requests” between 2011 and 2014 alone. The study was published January 7 by Society and Natural Resources journal.
“This research shows how local government actions can cause residents to reject environmental efforts — in this case, street trees — that would otherwise be in people’s interests,” says Carmichael, a postdoctoral researcher at UVM’s Gund Institute for Environment and Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources.
Carmichael found that the opposition in Detroit resulted primarily from negative past experiences with street trees, particularly in low-income neighborhoods grappling with blight from vacant properties. In 2014 alone, the city had an estimated 20,000 dead or hazardous trees, following the contraction of Detroit’s once-massive tree maintenance program from budget cuts and population decline.
For many long-term residents, wariness of the new trees was driven by past experiences of caring for vacant properties in their neighborhood. They believed responsibility for maintaining the trees would eventually fall to them. “Even though it’s city property, we’re gonna end up having to care for it and raking leaves and God knows whatever else we might have to do,” said one woman interviewed for the study.
Carmichael also found that skepticism of the program was tied to wider distrust of the city government and outside groups in parts of Detroit. As a result, residents wanted greater decision-making power in selecting which trees to plant in particular locations, adds Carmichael who completed the three-year study for her PhD with co-author Maureen McDonough of Michigan State University…. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/01/190107142109.htm

Citation:

Why people reject city trees: Study explains why thousands of Detroit residents rejected city’s tree planting efforts
Date: January 7, 2019
Source: University of Vermont
Summary:
Why did nearly one-quarter of eligible residents in Detroit turn down free street trees? That’s the mystery researchers solve in one of the first studies to explore opposition to city tree planting programs. As cities from New York to L.A. embark on tree planting initiatives, the research helps to explain why more than 1,800 of 7,425 eligible Detroit residents — roughly 25 percent — submitted ‘no-tree requests’ between 2011 and 2014 alone.

Christine E. Carmichael & Maureen H. McDonough (2019) Community Stories: Explaining Resistance to Street Tree-Planting Programs in Detroit, Michigan, USA, Society & Natural Resources, DOI: 10.1080/08941920.2018.1550229

Here is the press release from the University of Vermont:

Why People Reject City Trees
Study explains why thousands of Detroit residents rejected city’s tree planting efforts
Trees are a hallmark of vibrant neighborhoods. So why did nearly one-quarter of eligible residents in Detroit, Michigan, turn down free street trees? That’s the mystery University of Vermont researcher Christine Carmichael solves in one of the first studies to explore opposition to city tree planting programs.
As cities from New York to L.A. embark on major tree planting initiatives, the research helps to explain why more than 1,800 of 7,425 eligible Detroit residents – roughly 25% – submitted “no-tree requests” between 2011 and 2014 alone.
“This research shows how local government actions can cause residents to reject environmental efforts – in this case, street trees – that would otherwise be in people’s interests,” says Carmichael, a postdoctoral researcher at UVM’s Gund Institute for Environment and Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources.
The study was published January 7 by Society and Natural Resources journal.
Carmichael found that the opposition in Detroit resulted primarily from negative past experiences with street trees, particularly in low-income neighborhoods grappling with blight from vacant properties. In 2014 alone, the city had an estimated 20,000 dead or hazardous trees, following the contraction of Detroit’s once-massive tree maintenance program from budget cuts and population decline.
For many long-term residents, wariness of the new trees was driven by past experiences of caring for vacant properties in their neighborhood. They believed responsibility for maintaining the trees would eventually fall to them. “Even though it’s city property, we’re gonna end up having to care for it and raking leaves and God knows whatever else we might have to do,” said one woman interviewed for the study.
Carmichael also found that skepticism of the program was tied to wider distrust of the city government and outside groups in parts of Detroit. As a result, residents wanted greater decision-making power in selecting which trees to plant in particular locations, adds Carmichael who completed the three-year study for her PhD with co-author Maureen McDonough of Michigan State University.
Greening Detroit
Urban greening projects offer health benefits to residents, from improved air quality to decreased crime, and seek to boost the typically lower amount of tree cover in low-income neighborhoods, Carmichael says.
For these reasons, many cities have launched major tree planting initiatives in recent years, including MillionTreesNYC, Grow Boston Greener, The Chicago Tree Initiative, and The Greening of Detroit.
To avoid past mistakes in the city’s tree planting and maintenance approach, staff at The Greening of Detroit, a non-profit contracted by the city to plant trees, selected tree species that could survive in urban environments and guaranteed maintenance of trees for three years after planting.
However, the group relied primarily on educating residents about the benefits of trees and their program, which failed to address people’s concerns. “By not giving residents a say in the tree planting program, they were re-creating the same conflicts that had been happening in the city for a long time,” says Carmichael.
Carmichael says simple steps, such as allowing residents a choice over which kind of tree will be planted in front of their home, can reduce tensions. Investing more effort in follow-up communication with residents who receive trees would also help to ensure that trees are cared for, and residents do not feel overburdened with tree maintenance.
One man interviewed for the study said, “I’ve left several messages. My tree was planted last August. My wife loved it. I was told that they would come back out and either water it or fertilize it. Haven’t seen anyone. So, I’ve been doing the best that I can. Where do I go from here?”
Lessons for non-profits
Monica Tabares of The Greening of Detroit says that increased spending by the City of Detroit’s forestry department, as well as a change in the organization’s leadership, has led the group to focus more on community engagement.
Since Carmichael presented her findings to The Greening of Detroit, the organization has instituted community engagement training for the youth they hire to water street trees and interact with residents. “As a result of our refined focus, [our program] has brought thousands of residents together to not only plant trees, but gain a greater understanding of the benefits of trees in their communities,” says Tabares.
Carmichael’s study is gaining attention from city planners across North America hoping to learn Detroit’s lessons. Local governments and non-profits in Austin, Denver, Indianapolis, Sacramento, Toronto and Vermont have reached out for help implementing her research.
The study also offers lessons for how non-profits and donors measure successful outcomes, Carmichael says.
With limited resources and watchful donors, some non-profits often focus on narrow outcomes — such as the number of trees planted per year – without also prioritizing deeper community engagement, which might slow the immediate work of planting trees, but create more a sustainable outcome.
“We need to broaden the measurable outcomes that we can gauge success by,” says Carmichael. “Healthy urban forests cannot be measured just by the number of trees planted. We also have to capture who is involved, and how that involvement affects the well-being of people and trees in the long-term.”

The Royal Parks of the United Kingdom summarized the benefits of urban trees.

The Royal Parks wrote in Why are trees so important?

Trees are vital. As the biggest plants on the planet, they give us oxygen, store carbon, stabilise the soil and give life to the world’s wildlife. They also provide us with the materials for tools and shelter.
Not only are trees essential for life, but as the longest living species on earth, they give us a link between the past, present and future.
It’s critical that woodlands, rainforests and trees in urban settings, such as parks, are preserved and sustainably managed across the world….
Trees benefit health
The canopies of trees act as a physical filter, trapping dust and absorbing pollutants from the air. Each individual tree removes up to 1.7 kilos every year. They also provide shade from solar radiation and reduce noise….
Trees benefit the environment
Trees absorb carbon dioxide as they grow and the carbon that they store in their wood helps slow the rate of global warming.
They reduce wind speeds and cool the air as they lose moisture and reflect heat upwards from their leaves. It’s estimated that trees can reduce the temperature in a city by up to 7°C.
Trees also help prevent flooding and soil erosion, absorbing thousands of litres of stormwater.
Trees boost wildlife
Trees host complex microhabitats. When young, they offer habitation and food to amazing communities of birds, insects, lichen and fungi. When ancient, their trunks also provide the hollow cover needed by species such as bats, woodboring beetles, tawny owls and woodpeckers.
One mature oak can be home to as many as 500 different species. Richmond Park is full of such trees, which is one of the reasons it has been designated a National Nature Reserve and Site of Special Scientific Interest.
Trees strengthen communities
Trees strengthen the distinctive character of a place and encourage local pride. Urban woodland can be used as an educational resource and to bring groups together for activities like walking and bird-watching. Trees are also invaluable for children to play in and discover their sense of adventure.
Trees grow the economy
People are attracted to live, work and invest in green surroundings. Research shows that average house prices are 5-18% higher when properties are close to mature trees. Companies benefit from a healthier, happier workforce if there are parks and trees nearby.
Trees protect the future
Soon, for the first time in history, the number of people with homes in cities will outstrip those living in the countryside. Parks and trees will become an even more vital component of urban life. We must respect them and protect them for the future…. https://www.royalparks.org.uk/parks/the-regents-park/things-to-see-and-do/gardens-and-landscapes/tree-map/why-trees-are-important

See, Envisioning a Great Green City: Nature needs cities. Cities need nature. https://www.nature.org/en-us/what-we-do/our-insights/perspectives/envisioning-a-great-green-city/

Resources:

Urban Forestry & Energy Conservation Bibliography https://articles.extension.org/pages/71120/urban-forestry-energy-conservation-bibliography

Urban Forestry Bibliography Created by the Forest Service … https://www.milliontreesnyc.org/downloads/pdf/urban_tree_bib.pdf

Where information leads to Hope. © Dr. Wilda.com

Dr. Wilda says this about that ©

Blogs by Dr. Wilda:

COMMENTS FROM AN OLD FART©
http://drwildaoldfart.wordpress.com/

Dr. Wilda Reviews ©
http://drwildareviews.wordpress.com/

Dr. Wilda ©
https://drwilda.com/

Tufts University study: Racial inequality in the deployment of rooftop solar energy in the United States

11 Jan

The Department of Energy described the use of solar energy:

Despite this impressive progress, significant work remains before solar becomes as affordable as conventional energy sources and meets its full potential throughout the country. Solar hardware costs have fallen dramatically, but market barriers and grid integration challenges continue to hinder greater deployment. Non-hardware solar “soft costs”—such as permitting, financing, and customer acquisition—are becoming an increasingly larger fraction of the total cost of solar and now constitute up to 55% of the cost of a residential system.4 Technological advances and innovative solutions are still needed to increase efficiency, drive down costs, and enable utilities to rely on solar for baseload power.
1See: http://www.seia.org/research-resources/us-solar-market-insight
2The Solar Foundation. National Solar Jobs Census. See: http://www.thesolarfoundation.org/national/
3National Renewable Energy Laboratory and U.S. Department of Energy. SunShot Vision Study. Feb. 2012. pp.4-5. See: http://energy.gov/eere/sunshot/sunshot-vision-study.
4National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Dec. 2013. See: http://www.nrel.gov/news/press/2013/5306.html.
https://www.energy.gov/eere/solarpoweringamerica/solar-energy-united-states

If use of solar technology is to become more widely used, income issues must be addressed.

Peter Hanlon wrote in The Middle Class is Driving the Solar Revolution:

According to some fascinating new research by the Center for American Progress, the American middle class is overwhelmingly driving the solar revolution. After looking at certain demographics of households that installed solar panels in Arizona, California and New Jersey (the three top solar states), the analysis found three common trends:
1. At least 60 percent of homeowners are installing solar panels in zip codes with median incomes ranging from $40,000 to $90,000. (In Arizona that figure jumps to 80 percent.)
2. The distribution of solar installations across income levels lines up closely with population distribution. In other words, households of all income levels are going solar, from those in lower income neighborhoods to the wealthiest zip codes.
3. The share of solar installations within middle class neighborhoods – those in the $40,000 to $90,000 income range – continues to increase, meaning that solar installers are relying less on wealthier customers to drive growth and more on middle income customers. (Case in point, the most solar growth in New Jersey took place in areas where median income was between $30,000 and $40,000.)
One of the biggest reasons that rooftop solar panels have become much more than green status symbols for wealthy customers is net metering, a policy which allows solar panel -owning homeowners to see their electric meters spin backwards – and their utility bills shrink – as they generate their own electricity.
Even with the rapid growth in the number of residential solar installations, rooftop panels are still only providing one quarter of 1 percent of all electricity produced in the US. Nevertheless, the Center for American Progress analysis reports that many utilities see in their future the ominous-sounding “utility death spiral.” Their theory goes like this: Homeowners install solar panels, which reduces the amount of electricity they buy from the electric utility, thereby reducing the amount of fees that customers pay for grid maintenance, which then causes the utility to raise rates and, ultimately, encourages more and more customers to go solar which… causes rates to soar…. http://www.gracelinks.org/blog/3390/the-middle-class-is-driving-the-solar-revolution

A Tufts University study reported on inequity in the use of solar panels.

Science Daily reported in Racial inequality in the deployment of rooftop solar energy in the United States, study finds:

Although the popularity of rooftop solar panels has skyrocketed because of their benefits to consumers and the environment, the deployment has predominantly occurred in white neighborhoods, even after controlling for household income and home ownership, according to a study by researchers from Tufts University and the University of California, Berkeley, published today in the journal Nature Sustainability.
While solar energy is a popular, cost-effective, sustainable source of energy that can be deployed at large, utility-scale
Researchers combined data from Google’s Project Sunroof on existing rooftop solar installations across the United States with demographic data, including household income, home ownership, and ethnicity and race, from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. The Project Sunroof data includes information on more than 60 million rooftops, and almost 2 million solar installations.
“Advances in remote sensing and in ‘big data’ science enable us not only to take a unique look at where solar is deployed but also to combine that with census and demographic data to chart who gets to benefit from the solar energy revolution,” said Sergio Castellanos, Ph.D., a research faculty at UC Berkeley’s Energy and Resources Group and the California Institute for Energy and Environment (CIEE). “This information allows us to think more deeply about the effectiveness of current policies and approaches to accelerating solar PV (photovoltaics) deployment.”
The study found that for the same median household income:
• black-majority census tracts — or neighborhoods — have installed 69 percent less rooftop PV than census tracts (neighborhoods) where no single race or ethnicity makes up the majority (no-majority); and
• Hispanic-majority census tracts have installed 30 percent less rooftop PV than no-majority census tracts. Meanwhile, white-majority census tracts have installed 21 percent more rooftop PV than no-majority census tracts.
When correcting for home ownership, black- and Hispanic-majority census tracts have installed less rooftop PV compared to no-majority tracts by 61 percent and 45 percent, respectively, while white-majority census tracts installed 37 percent more.
The study’s authors said more research is needed to help determine the root causes of the differences. They noted that the findings could be useful in developing better and more inclusive energy infrastructure policy and outcomes, including as part of the evolving ‘Green New Deal’ and programs at the state and federal level…. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/01/190110141709.htm

Citation:

Racial inequality in the deployment of rooftop solar energy in the United States, study finds
Date: January 10, 2019
Source: Tufts University
Summary:
Fewer rooftop solar photovoltaics installations exist in African-American and Hispanic-dominant neighborhoods than in white-dominant neighborhoods, even when controlling for household income and home ownership, according to a new study.
Journal Reference:
Deborah A. Sunter, Sergio Castellanos, Daniel M. Kammen. Disparities in rooftop photovoltaics deployment in the United States by race and ethnicity. Nature Sustainability, 2019; 2 (1): 71 DOI: 10.1038/s41893-018-0204-z

Here is the press release from Tufts University:

PUBLIC RELEASE: 10-JAN-2019
Study: Racial inequality in the deployment of rooftop solar energy in the US
Fewer rooftop solar photovoltaics installations exist in African-American and Hispanic-dominant neighborhoods than in white-dominant neighborhoods, even when controlling for household income and home ownership
MEDFORD/SOMERVILLE, Mass. and BERKELEY, Ca. (Jan. 10, 2019)–Although the popularity of rooftop solar panels has skyrocketed because of their benefits to consumers and the environment, the deployment has predominantly occurred in white neighborhoods, even after controlling for household income and home ownership, according to a study by researchers from Tufts University and the University of California, Berkeley, published today in the journal Nature Sustainability.
While solar energy is a popular, cost-effective, sustainable source of energy that can be deployed at large, utility-scale projects as well as on individual rooftops, deployment of rooftop solar has been uneven.
“Solar power is crucial to meeting the climate goals presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but we can and need to deploy solar more broadly so that it benefits all people, regardless of race and ethnicity,” said Deborah Sunter, Ph.D., an assistant professor of mechanical engineering at the School of Engineering at Tufts, and the study’s lead author. “Solar energy can be a resource for climate protection and social empowerment.”
Researchers combined data from Google’s Project Sunroof on existing rooftop solar installations across the United States with demographic data, including household income, home ownership, and ethnicity and race, from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. The Project Sunroof data includes information on more than 60 million rooftops, and almost 2 million solar installations.
“Advances in remote sensing and in ‘big data’ science enable us not only to take a unique look at where solar is deployed but also to combine that with census and demographic data to chart who gets to benefit from the solar energy revolution,” said Sergio Castellanos, Ph.D., a research faculty at UC Berkeley’s Energy and Resources Group and the California Institute for Energy and Environment (CIEE). “This information allows us to think more deeply about the effectiveness of current policies and approaches to accelerating solar PV (photovoltaics) deployment.”
The study found that for the same median household income:
• black-majority census tracts – or neighborhoods – have installed 69 percent less rooftop PV than census tracts (neighborhoods) where no single race or ethnicity makes up the majority (no-majority); and
• Hispanic-majority census tracts have installed 30 percent less rooftop PV than no-majority census tracts. Meanwhile, white-majority census tracts have installed 21 percent more rooftop PV than no-majority census tracts.
When correcting for home ownership, black- and Hispanic-majority census tracts have installed less rooftop PV compared to no-majority tracts by 61 percent and 45 percent, respectively, while white-majority census tracts installed 37 percent more.
The study’s authors said more research is needed to help determine the root causes of the differences. They noted that the findings could be useful in developing better and more inclusive energy infrastructure policy and outcomes, including as part of the evolving ‘Green New Deal’ and programs at the state and federal level.
“Our work illustrates that while solar can be a powerful tool for climate protection and social equity, a lack of access or a lack of outreach to all segments of society can dramatically weaken the social benefit,” said Daniel Kammen, Ph.D., former science envoy for the U. S. State Department, and current professor and chair of the Energy and Resources Group, professor in the Goldman School of Policy, and professor of Nuclear Engineering at UC Berkeley. Both Sunter and Kammen have been fellows of the Berkeley Institute for Data Science (BIDS), and Castellanos is a fellow at UC Berkeley´s Data for Social Sciences Lab (D-Lab).
###
Sunter, D., Castellanos, S., Kammen, D. (2019) “Disparities in rooftop photovoltaics deployment in the United States by race and ethnicity,” Nature Sustainability. DOI 10.1038/s41893-018-0204-z.
About Tufts University
Tufts University, located on campuses in Boston, Medford/Somerville and Grafton, Massachusetts, and in Talloires, France, is recognized among the premier research universities in the United States. Tufts enjoys a global reputation for academic excellence and for the preparation of students as leaders in a wide range of professions. A growing number of innovative teaching and research initiatives span all Tufts campuses, and collaboration among the faculty and students in the undergraduate, graduate and professional programs across the university’s schools is widely encouraged.

Even middle and upper income users of solar energy have to analyze the cost of solar. For lower income potential users of solar, the financial analysis is even more rigorous.

Bryan Phelps wrote in 5 Ways to Determine if Solar Energy is Right for You:

Governments, organizations, businesses, and homeowners are adopting solar energy at an exponential rate. Every year, new residential solar companies spring up to meet the demand of the expanding market. Regardless of the popularity and availability, solar energy is not a good fit for everyone, but it may be the right fit for you. Here are five important factors to consider when deciding if solar makes sense:
1. Location – Residential solar is available in every state, but in some states, switching to solar just makes more sense. Solar panels require direct sunlight, so if you live in an area with significant cloud cover, making the switch may not be a wise decision. Homes located in southwestern states, like California and Arizona, are great candidates for solar power. Even states you might not expect, like Massachusetts and New Jersey, are among the top contenders for solar energy consumption. There are many resources available online to help consumers review their state’s solar situation.
2. Energy habits – If your utility bills cost you hundreds of dollars each month, solar energy offers big potential savings. Solar is a great solution for homes that consume a lot of power because the savings outweigh the investment. Keep in mind that energy generation typically corresponds with need. During summer afternoons when the sun is brightest, energy needs rise (think fans and air conditioners), while solar energy generation increases.
3. Roof style – To maximize solar exposure, roof panels need to meet specific requirements. Many contractors will not install on a roof that will need replacing within 15 years. Additionally, steep pitches, flat roofs, and trees that cast a shadow on your house can all limit sun exposure and reduce the system’s efficacy. Conditions are best when the roof faces south and is made of composite shingles or concrete tile. Speaking with a professional installer or solar expert can help you determine if your roof meets the requirements.
4. Your “green” status – If you already try to make eco-friendly choices, deciding on solar may be a great next step. Solar consumers make a real difference by addressing one of the largest contributors to carbon emissions — residential homes. A 2013 study from UC Berkeley examined CO2 emissions reductions from residential solar. Researchers analyzed 113,533 homes with solar power and found that together, they avoided 696,544 metric tons of CO2 emissions. That is equivalent to the average annual output of 146,641 cars, or 1,619,870 barrels of oil.
5. Your wallet – Depending on how you decide to purchase and install your solar panels, there are several financial incentives to help alleviate any costs. State tax breaks and other government rebates provide incentive for many. Some solar companies even offer free installation with term agreements to make solar energy systems more affordable. In addition to these immediate savings, consumers who choose solar enjoy lower utility bills and increased home values. Over a 20-year period, the average solar customer is expected to save $20,080. A study over an 8-year period found that homes with solar energy not only sold at a higher price, but also had a better rate of sale than those without.
Solar technology and innovation are increasingly more available and affordable. For many homeowners, residential solar energy can be a practical and cost-effective approach to self-reliant and smart energy consumption…. http://www.yourenergyblog.com/5-ways-to-determine-if-solar-energy-is-right-for-you/

For many who are low-income, solar energy is often not economically viable.

Where information leads to Hope. © Dr. Wilda.com

Dr. Wilda says this about that ©

Blogs by Dr. Wilda:

COMMENTS FROM AN OLD FART©
http://drwildaoldfart.wordpress.com/

Dr. Wilda Reviews ©
http://drwildareviews.wordpress.com/

Dr. Wilda ©
https://drwilda.com/

Indiana University study: CBD in marijuana may worsen glaucoma, raise eye pressure

7 Jan

The National Institute on Drug Abuse reported in How might cannabinoids be useful as medicine?

Currently, the two main cannabinoids from the marijuana plant that are of medical interest are THC and CBD.
THC can increase appetite and reduce nausea. THC may also decrease pain, inflammation (swelling and redness), and muscle control problems.Unlike THC, CBD is a cannabinoid that doesn’t make people “high.” These drugs aren’t popular for recreational use because they aren’t intoxicating. It may be useful in reducing pain and inflammation, controlling epileptic seizures, and possibly even treating mental illness and addictions. Many researchers, including those funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), are continuing to explore the possible uses of THC, CBD, and other cannabinoids for medical treatment.
For instance, recent animal studies have shown that marijuana extracts may help kill certain cancer cells and reduce the size of others. Evidence from one cell culture study with rodents suggests that purified extracts from whole-plant marijuana can slow the growth of cancer cells from one of the most serious types of brain tumors. Research in mice showed that treatment with purified extracts of THC and CBD, when used with radiation, increased the cancer-killing effects of the radiation….10
https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana-medicine

There is a question among medical providers about marijuana’s usefulness in glaucoma treatment.

David Turbert, contributing writer: Dayle Kern wrote in American Academy of Ophthalmology article which was reviewed by Dr. J. Kevin McKinney, MD, MPH, Does Marijuana Help Treat Glaucoma?

Medical marijuana is promoted as a treatment for many diseases, including glaucoma. And now that the sale and possession of marijuana has been legalized in states like Colorado and Washington, it can be easier than ever to self medicate as a glaucoma treatment without consulting your ophthalmologist. But does it really work?
Glaucoma is an eye condition in which the optic nerve becomes damaged over time, reducing side vision. It sometimes leads to blindness. One cause of optic nerve damage in glaucoma is higher-than-normal pressure within the eye (intraocular pressure or “IOP”).
Currently, the only way to control glaucoma and prevent vision loss is to lower your IOP levels. Your ophthalmologist can treat glaucoma with medication, such as prescription eye drops, or surgery, depending on the type of glaucoma and how severe it is.
Learn more about: Glaucoma treatment options
The idea that marijuana can be helpful in treating glaucoma dates to the 1970s. Studies conducted then showed that smoking marijuana lowered the IOP of people with glaucoma. As a result of this research, additional studies were conducted examining whether marijuana or its active ingredient, a compound known as THC, could be used to keep IOP lowered. This research was supported by the National Eye Institute, a division of the federal National Institutes of Health.
The research found that when marijuana is smoked or when a form of its active ingredient is taken as a pill or by injection, it does lower IOP. However, it only lowers IOP for a short period of time—about three or four hours.
This short period of time is a major drawback for the use of marijuana as a glaucoma treatment. Because glaucoma needs to be treated 24 hours a day, you would need to smoke marijuana six to eight times a day around the clock to receive the benefit of a consistently lowered IOP. Because of marijuana’s mood-altering effect, smoking so much of it daily would leave you too impaired to drive, operate equipment or function at the peak of your mental ability….
Scientists are still exploring whether the active ingredients in marijuana may yet offer a glaucoma treatment. However, such developments require much more research and are many years from becoming a reality.
So, while marijuana can temporarily lower your IOP, it’s not recommended for treating glaucoma. Prescription medication and surgical treatments have been tested and proven as effective treatments for the condition. On June 27, 2014, the American Academy of Ophthalmology reiterated its position that it does not recommend marijuana or other cannabis products for the treatment of glaucoma. https://www.aao.org/eye-health/tips-prevention/medical-marijuana-glaucoma-treament

An Indiana University study questioned the use of marijuana in the treatment of glaucoma.

Science Daily reported in CBD in marijuana may worsen glaucoma, raise eye pressure:

One of the most commonly proposed uses of medical marijuana is to treat glaucoma.
But a study from researchers at Indiana University has found that a major chemical component in the substance appears to worsen the primary underpinning of the disease: a rise in pressure inside the eye.
The chemical that causes this rise in pressure is cannabidiol, or CBD, a non-psychoactive ingredient in cannabis that is increasingly marketed to consumers in products such as oil, gummies, creams and health food. It is also approved in many states as a treatment for conditions such as pediatric epilepsy.
The study was reported Dec. 14 in the journal Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science….
The study, which was conducted in mice, specifically found that CBD caused an increase in pressure inside the eye of 18 percent for at least four hours after use.
Tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, the primary psychoactive ingredient of marijuana, was found to effectively lower pressure in the eye, as has been previously reported. But the study found that the use of CBD in combination with THC blocked this effect.
Specifically, the study found that male mice experienced a drop in eye pressure of nearly 30 percent eight hours after exposure to THC alone. A lower pressure drop of 22 percent was also observed after four hours in male mice.
The effect was weaker in female mice. This group experienced a pressure drop of only 17 percent after four hours. No difference in eye pressure was measured after eight hours.
The results suggest that females may be less affected by THC, though it isn’t clear whether this extends to the substance’s psychoactive effects.
“This difference between males and females — and the fact that CBD seems to worsen eye pressure, the primary risk factor for glaucoma — are both important aspects of this study,” Straiker said. “It’s also notable that CBD appears to actively oppose the beneficial effects of THC.”
By comparing the effect of these substances on mice without specific neuroreceptors affected by THC and CBD, the IU researchers were also able to identify the two specific neuroreceptors — named CB1 and GPR18 — by which the first substance lowered pressure inside the eye.
“There were studies over 45 years ago that found evidence that THC lowers pressure inside the eye, but no one’s ever identified the specific neuroreceptors involved in the process until this study,” Straiker said. “These results could have important implications for future research on the use of cannabis as a therapy for intraocular pressure.” https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/12/181217151537.htm

Citation:

CBD in marijuana may worsen glaucoma, raise eye pressure
Research in mice suggests over-the-counter substance could possess unknown side effects
Date: December 17, 2018
Source: Indiana University
Summary:
A study has found that CBD — a major chemical component in marijuana — appears to increase pressure inside the eye of mice, suggesting the use of the substance in the treatment of glaucoma may actually worsen the condition.
Journal Reference:
Sally Miller, Laura Daily, Emma Leishman, Heather Bradshaw, Alex Straiker. Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol and Cannabidiol Differentially Regulate Intraocular Pressure. Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science, 2018; 59 (15): 5904 DOI: 10.1167/iovs.18-24838

Here is the press release from Indiana University:

PUBLIC RELEASE: 17-DEC-2018
Study suggests CBD may worsen glaucoma, raise eye pressure
Research in mice suggests over-the-counter substance could possess unknown side effects
INDIANA UNIVERSITY
One of the most commonly proposed uses of medical marijuana is to treat glaucoma.
But a study from researchers at Indiana University has found that a major chemical component in the substance appears to worsen the primary underpinning of the disease: a rise in pressure inside the eye.
The chemical that causes this rise in pressure is cannabidiol, or CBD, a non-psychoactive ingredient in cannabis that is increasingly marketed to consumers in products such as oil, gummies, creams and health food. It is also approved in many states as a treatment for conditions such as pediatric epilepsy.
The study was reported Dec. 14 in the journal Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science.
“This study raises important questions about the relationship between the primary ingredients in cannabis and their effect on the eye,” said Alex Straiker, an associate scientist in the IU Bloomington College of Arts and Sciences’ Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, who led the study. “It also suggests the need to understand more about the potential undesirable side effects of CBD, especially due to its use in children.”
The study, which was conducted in mice, specifically found that CBD caused an increase in pressure inside the eye of 18 percent for at least four hours after use.
Tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, the primary psychoactive ingredient of marijuana, was found to effectively lower pressure in the eye, as has been previously reported. But the study found that the use of CBD in combination with THC blocked this effect.
Specifically, the study found that male mice experienced a drop in eye pressure of nearly 30 percent eight hours after exposure to THC alone. A lower pressure drop of 22 percent was also observed after four hours in male mice.
The effect was weaker in female mice. This group experienced a pressure drop of only 17 percent after four hours. No difference in eye pressure was measured after eight hours.
The results suggest that females may be less affected by THC, though it isn’t clear whether this extends to the substance’s psychoactive effects.
“This difference between males and females — and the fact that CBD seems to worsen eye pressure, the primary risk factor for glaucoma — are both important aspects of this study,” Straiker said. “It’s also notable that CBD appears to actively oppose the beneficial effects of THC.”
By comparing the effect of these substances on mice without specific neuroreceptors affected by THC and CBD, the IU researchers were also able to identify the two specific neuroreceptors — named CB1 and GPR18 — by which the first substance lowered pressure inside the eye.
“There were studies over 45 years ago that found evidence that THC lowers pressure inside the eye, but no one’s ever identified the specific neuroreceptors involved in the process until this study,” Straiker said. “These results could have important implications for future research on the use of cannabis as a therapy for intraocular pressure.”
###
Other IU authors on the paper included Heather Bradshaw, an associate professor in IU Bloomington Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences. The study was supported in part by the National Eye Institute.
Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to

The Glaucoma Research Foundation discussed glaucoma treatment in Should You Be Using Marijuana to Treat Your Glaucoma?

According to the Glaucoma Research Foundation:

Long-term Safety Concerns
Concerns also exist regarding the long-term safety of marijuana use, due to its associations with permanent lung damage when smoked, and possible permanent adverse effects on cognition and mental health. With regular use, tolerance to the eye pressure-lowering effects develops, meaning that increasing drug levels would be required to prevent progression of glaucoma. Finally, lack of regulation and quality control makes efficacy and safety of marijuana unpredictable. Research efforts to develop THC eyedrops that can effectively lower eye pressure while minimizing side effects are underway but have not yet been successful.
For these reasons, while marijuana does lower eye pressure, it is not recommended as a medical treatment for glaucoma. If you use marijuana, let your eye doctor know since it may have an impact on your eye pressure readings. Also, it is very important to continue your current glaucoma therapy and regular monitoring as recommended by your eye doctor.

Kathryn E. Bollinger, MD is a glaucoma specialist and Associate Professor of Ophthalmology within the Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University. Her research focuses on development of novel neuroprotective treatments for glaucoma.
Kevin M. Halenda, MD is a second-year ophthalmology resident at the Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University. He is a graduate of Emory University School of Medicine and Princeton University.                                                                                                                   https://www.glaucoma.org/treatment/should-you-be-using-marijuana-to-treat-your-glaucoma.php

As with treatment for any medical condition, the advice of competent medical personnel must be consulted.

Where information leads to Hope. © Dr. Wilda.com

Dr. Wilda says this about that ©

Blogs by Dr. Wilda:

COMMENTS FROM AN OLD FART©
http://drwildaoldfart.wordpress.com/

Dr. Wilda Reviews ©
http://drwildareviews.wordpress.com/

Dr. Wilda ©
https://drwilda.com/

University of California Berkeley study: Artificial intelligence advances threaten privacy of health data

6 Jan

Joseph Jerome, CIPP/US wrote in the 2016 article, Why artificial intelligence may be the next big privacy trend:

What that looks like will vary, but it is likely that the same far-reaching and broad worries about fairness and accountability that have dogged every discussion about big data — and informed the FTC’s January Big Data Report — will present serious concerns for certain applications of AI. While “Preparing for the Future of Artificial Intelligence” is largely an exercise in stage-setting, the report is likely a harbinger of the same type of attention and focus that emerged within the advocacy community in the wake of the White House’s 2014 Big Data Report. For the privacy profession, the report hints at a few areas where our attention ought to be directed.
First, AI is still a nascent, immature field of engineering, and promoting that maturation process will involve a variety of different training and capacity-building efforts. The report explicitly recommends that ethical training, as well as training in security, privacy, and safety, should become an integral part of the curricula on AI, machine learning, and computer and data science at universities. Moving forward, one could imagine that ethical and other non-technical training will also be an important component of our STEM policies at large. Beyond formal education, however, building awareness among actual AI practitioners and developers will be essential to mitigate disconcerting or unintended behaviors, and to bolster public confidence in the application of artificial intelligence. Policymakers, federal agencies and civil society will need more in-house technical expertise to become more conversant on the current capabilities of artificial intelligence.
Second, while transparency is generally trotted out as the best of disinfectants, balancing transparency in the realm of AI will be a tremendous challenge for both competitive reasons and the “black box” nature of what we’re dealing with. While the majority of basic AI research is currently conducted by academics and commercial labs that collaborate to announce and publish their findings, the report ominously notes that competitive instincts could drive commercial labs towards increased secrecy, inhibiting the ability to monitor the progress of AI development and raising public concerns. But even if we can continue to promote transparency in the development of AI, it may be difficult for anyone whether they be auditors, consumers, or regulators to understand, predict, or explain the behaviors of more sophisticated AI systems.
But even if we can continue to promote transparency in the development of AI, it may be difficult for anyone whether they be auditors, consumers, or regulators to understand, predict, or explain the behaviors of more sophisticated AI systems.
The alternative appears to be bolstering accountability frameworks, but what exactly that looks like in this context is anyone’s guess. The report largely places its hopes on finding technical solutions to address accountability with respect to AI, and an IEEE effort on autonomous systems that I’ve been involved with has faced a similar roadblock. But if we have to rely on technical tools to put good intentions into practice, we will need more discussion about what those tools will be and how industry and individuals alike will be able to use them.
The Sky(net) isn’t falling, but…                                                                https://iapp.org/news/a/why-artificial-intelligence-may-be-the-next-big-privacy-trend/

A University of California Berkeley study reported there could be problem with the use of AI and privacy issues in health data.

Science Daily reported in Artificial intelligence advances threaten privacy of health data:

Led by UC Berkeley engineer Anil Aswani, the study suggests current laws and regulations are nowhere near sufficient to keep an individual’s health status private in the face of AI development. The research was published Dec. 21 in the JAMA Network Open journal.
The findings show that by using artificial intelligence, it is possible to identify individuals by learning daily patterns in step data, such as that collected by activity trackers, smartwatches and smartphones, and correlating it to demographic data.
The mining of two years’ worth of data covering more than 15,000 Americans led to the conclusion that the privacy standards associated with 1996’s HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) legislation need to be revisited and reworked.
“We wanted to use NHANES (the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey) to look at privacy questions because this data is representative of the diverse population in the U.S.,” said Aswani. “The results point out a major problem. If you strip all the identifying information, it doesn’t protect you as much as you’d think. Someone else can come back and put it all back together if they have the right kind of information.”
“In principle, you could imagine Facebook gathering step data from the app on your smartphone, then buying health care data from another company and matching the two,” he added. “Now they would have health care data that’s matched to names, and they could either start selling advertising based on that or they could sell the data to others.”
According to Aswani, the problem isn’t with the devices, but with how the information the devices capture can be misused and potentially sold on the open market.
“I’m not saying we should abandon these devices,” he said. “But we need to be very careful about how we are using this data. We need to protect the information. If we can do that, it’s a net positive.”
Though the study specifically looked at step data, the results suggest a broader threat to the privacy of health data…. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/01/190103152906.htm

Citation:

Artificial intelligence advances threaten privacy of health data
Study finds current laws and regulations do not safeguard individuals’ confidential health information
Date: January 3, 2019
Source: University of California – Berkeley
Summary:
Advances in artificial intelligence, including activity trackers, smartphones and smartwatches, threaten the privacy of people’s health data, according to new research.

Journal Reference:
Liangyuan Na, Cong Yang, Chi-Cheng Lo, Fangyuan Zhao, Yoshimi Fukuoka, Anil Aswani. Feasibility of Reidentifying Individuals in Large National Physical Activity Data Sets From Which Protected Health Information Has Been Removed With Use of Machine Learning. JAMA Network Open, 2018; 1 (8): e186040 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.6040

Here is a portion of the JAMA abstract:

Original Investigation
Health Policy
December 21, 2018
Feasibility of Reidentifying Individuals in Large National Physical Activity Data Sets From Which Protected Health Information Has Been Removed With Use of Machine Learning
Liangyuan Na, BA1; Cong Yang, BS2; Chi-Cheng Lo, BS2; et al Fangyuan Zhao, BS3; Yoshimi Fukuoka, PhD, RN4; Anil Aswani, PhD2
Author Affiliations Article Information
JAMA Netw Open. 2018;1(8):e186040. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.6040
Thomas H. McCoy Jr, MD; Michael C. Hughes, PhD
Key Points
Question Is it possible to reidentify physical activity data that have had protected health information removed by using machine learning?
Findings This cross-sectional study used national physical activity data from 14 451 individuals from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys 2003-2004 and 2005-2006. Linear support vector machine and random forests reidentified the 20-minute-level physical activity data of approximately 80% of children and 95% of adults.
Meaning The findings of this study suggest that current practices for deidentifying physical activity data are insufficient for privacy and that deidentification should aggregate the physical activity data of many people to ensure individuals’ privacy.
Abstract
Importance Despite data aggregation and removal of protected health information, there is concern that deidentified physical activity (PA) data collected from wearable devices can be reidentified. Organizations collecting or distributing such data suggest that the aforementioned measures are sufficient to ensure privacy. However, no studies, to our knowledge, have been published that demonstrate the possibility or impossibility of reidentifying such activity data.
Objective To evaluate the feasibility of reidentifying accelerometer-measured PA data, which have had geographic and protected health information removed, using support vector machines (SVMs) and random forest methods from machine learning.
Design, Setting, and Participants In this cross-sectional study, the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2003-2004 and 2005-2006 data sets were analyzed in 2018. The accelerometer-measured PA data were collected in a free-living setting for 7 continuous days. NHANES uses a multistage probability sampling design to select a sample that is representative of the civilian noninstitutionalized household (both adult and children) population of the United States.
Exposures The NHANES data sets contain objectively measured movement intensity as recorded by accelerometers worn during all walking for 1 week.
Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was the ability of the random forest and linear SVM algorithms to match demographic and 20-minute aggregated PA data to individual-specific record numbers, and the percentage of correct matches by each machine learning algorithm was the measure…. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2719130?resultClick=3

Here is the press release from UC Berkeley:

PUBLIC RELEASE: 3-JAN-2019
Artificial intelligence advances threaten privacy of health data
Study finds current laws and regulations do not safeguard individuals’ confidential health information
Advances in artificial intelligence have created new threats to the privacy of people’s health data, a new University of California, Berkeley, study shows.
Led by UC Berkeley engineer Anil Aswani, the study suggests current laws and regulations are nowhere near sufficient to keep an individual’s health status private in the face of AI development. The research was published Dec. 21 in the JAMA Network Open journal.
The findings show that by using artificial intelligence, it is possible to identify individuals by learning daily patterns in step data, such as that collected by activity trackers, smartwatches and smartphones, and correlating it to demographic data.
The mining of two years’ worth of data covering more than 15,000 Americans led to the conclusion that the privacy standards associated with 1996’s HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) legislation need to be revisited and reworked.
“We wanted to use NHANES (the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey) to look at privacy questions because this data is representative of the diverse population in the U.S.,” said Aswani. “The results point out a major problem. If you strip all the identifying information, it doesn’t protect you as much as you’d think. Someone else can come back and put it all back together if they have the right kind of information.”
“In principle, you could imagine Facebook gathering step data from the app on your smartphone, then buying health care data from another company and matching the two,” he added. “Now they would have health care data that’s matched to names, and they could either start selling advertising based on that or they could sell the data to others.”
According to Aswani, the problem isn’t with the devices, but with how the information the devices capture can be misused and potentially sold on the open market.
“I’m not saying we should abandon these devices,” he said. “But we need to be very careful about how we are using this data. We need to protect the information. If we can do that, it’s a net positive.”
Though the study specifically looked at step data, the results suggest a broader threat to the privacy of health data.
“HIPAA regulations make your health care private, but they don’t cover as much as you think,” Aswani said. “Many groups, like tech companies, are not covered by HIPAA, and only very specific pieces of information are not allowed to be shared by current HIPAA rules. There are companies buying health data. It’s supposed to be anonymous data, but their whole business model is to find a way to attach names to this data and sell it.”
Aswani said advances in AI make it easier for companies to gain access to health data, the temptation for companies to use it in illegal or unethical ways will increase. Employers, mortgage lenders, credit card companies and others could potentially use AI to discriminate based on pregnancy or disability status, for instance.
“Ideally, what I’d like to see from this are new regulations or rules that protect health data,” he said. “But there is actually a big push to even weaken the regulations right now. For instance, the rule-making group for HIPAA has requested comments on increasing data sharing. The risk is that if people are not aware of what’s happening, the rules we have will be weakened. And the fact is the risks of us losing control of our privacy when it comes to health care are actually increasing and not decreasing.”
###
Co-authors of the study are Liangyuan Na of MIT; Cong Yang and Chi-Cheng Lo of UC Berkeley; Fangyuan Zhao of Tsinghua University in China; and Yoshimi Fukuoka of UCSF.
Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.

RAND Corporation has information about health care privacy at https://www.rand.org/topics/health-information-privacy.html

StaySafeOnline described health care privacy issues in the article, Health Information Privacy – Why Should We Care?

• Health data is very personal and may contain information we wish to keep confidential (e.g., mental health records) or potentially impact employment prospects or insurance coverage (e.g., chronic disease or family health history).
• It is long living – an exposed credit card can be canceled, but your medical history stays with you a lifetime.
• It is very complete and comprehensive – the information health care organizations have about their patients includes not only medical data, but also insurance and financial account information. This could be personal information like Social Security numbers, addresses or even the names of next of kin. Such a wealth of data can be monetized by cyber adversaries in many ways.
• In our digital health care world, the reliable availability of accurate health data to clinicians is critical to care delivery and any disruption in access to that data can delay care or jeopardize diagnosis.
The privacy and security of health information is strictly regulated in the U.S. under federal laws, such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), but also through various state laws and laws protecting individuals against discrimination based on genetic data….
For health care providers and insurers, there is typically no limitation for patients to disclose information about their health. Just as any patient can (and mostly should) share concerns about their health with family and friends, any patient can now easily share anything they want with the world via social media or join an online support group. Although these are generally positive steps that help an individual with health concerns find support and receive advice, we now need to be much more conscious about what
However, concerns about your health care provider’s ability to protect your data should not lead to patients withholding information. Even in this digital age, the patient-doctor trust relationship is still the most important aspect of our health care system – and that trust goes both ways: patients need to trust their providers with often intimate and personal information, and providers need to know that their patients are not withholding anything due to privacy concerns.
We have entered the new age of digital medicine and almost universal availability of information, leading to better diagnosis and more successful treatments, ultimately reducing suffering and extending lives. However, this great opportunity also comes with new risks and we all – health care providers and patients alike – need to be conscious about how we use this new technology and share information…. https://staysafeonline.org/blog/health-information-privacy-care/

Resources:

Artificial Intelligence Will Redesign Healthcare https://medicalfuturist.com/artificial-intelligence-will-redesign-healthcare

9 Ways Artificial Intelligence is Affecting the Medical Field https://www.healthcentral.com/slideshow/8-ways-artificial-intelligence-is-affecting-the-medical-field#slide=2

Where information leads to Hope. © Dr. Wilda.com

Dr. Wilda says this about that ©

Blogs by Dr. Wilda:

COMMENTS FROM AN OLD FART©
http://drwildaoldfart.wordpress.com/

Dr. Wilda Reviews ©
http://drwildareviews.wordpress.com/

Dr. Wilda ©
https://drwilda.com/

Chalmers Institute of Technology study: Organic food worse for the climate?

3 Jan

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) described organic production:
What is organic production?

USDA Definition and Regulations:
The Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), enacted under Title 21 of the 1990 Farm Bill, served to establish uniform national standards for the production and handling of foods labeled as “organic.” The Act authorized a new USDA National Organic Program (NOP) to set national standards for the production, handling, and processing of organically grown agricultural products. In addition, the Program oversees mandatory certification of organic production. The Act also established the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) which advises the Secretary of Agriculture in setting the standards upon which the NOP is based. Producers who meet standards set by the NOP may label their products as “USDA Certified Organic.”
1. USDA National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) definition, April 1995
o “Organic agriculture is an ecological production management system that promotes and enhances biodiversity, biological cycles and soil biological activity. It is based on minimal use of off-farm inputs and on management practices that restore, maintain and enhance ecological harmony.
o “‘Organic’ is a labeling term that denotes products produced under the authority of the Organic Foods Production Act. The principal guidelines for organic production are to use materials and practices that enhance the ecological balance of natural systems and that integrate the parts of the farming system into an ecological whole.
o “Organic agriculture practices cannot ensure that products are completely free of residues; however, methods are used to minimize pollution from air, soil and water.
o “Organic food handlers, processors and retailers adhere to standards that maintain the integrity of organic agricultural products. The primary goal of organic agriculture is to optimize the health and productivity of interdependent communities of soil life, plants, animals and people.”
2. CFR Regulatory Text, 7 CFR Part 205, Subpart A — Definitions. § 205.2 Terms defined“Organic production. A production system that is managed in accordance with the Act and regulations in this part to respond to site-specific conditions by integrating cultural, biological, and mechanical practices that foster cycling of resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity.” USDA National Organic Program. http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=ac13bb030ee7a5c5ded65732f5c8946e&mc=true&node=se7.3.205_12&rgn=div8 (link is external)
3. USDA Consumer Brochure: Organic Food Standards and Labels: The Facts“What is organic food? Organic food is produced by farmers who emphasize the use of renewable resources and the conservation of soil and water to enhance environmental quality for future generations. Organic meat, poultry, eggs, and dairy products come from animals that are given no antibiotics or growth hormones. Organic food is produced without using most conventional pesticides; fertilizers made with synthetic ingredients or sewage sludge; bioengineering; or ionizing radiation. Before a product can be labeled ‘organic,’ a Government-approved certifier inspects the farm where the food is grown to make sure the farmer is following all the rules necessary to meet USDA organic standards. Companies that handle or process organic food before it gets to your local supermarket or restaurant must be certified, too.” Consumer Brochure, USDA National Organic Program. 2007.
The final national organic standards rule was published in the Federal Register on December 21, 2000. The law was activated April 21, 2001. The rule, along with detailed fact sheets and other background information, is available on the National Organic Program’s website…. https://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/organic-productionorganic-food-information-access-tools

Jo Lewin, Associate nutritionist at BBC Good Food described some of the benefits organic food.

Lewin wrote in What does organic mean?

What the research says
With many people believing that organic foods have a higher nutrient content, are kinder to the environment and livestock and are healthier than conventionally produced foods, demand for organic produce is on the rise. However, scientists have not been wholly convinced that health claims are completely justified, as the research conducted has not shown consistent results with regards to nutrient density.
In 2009, a report published by the Food Standards Agency summarised the findings of previous studies on the comparative nutritional benefits of organic and conventional produce. It concluded that organic did not deliver significant health benefits compared to non-organic equivalents.
However, there is plenty of evidence that there are more vitamins, minerals and omega-3s in organic produce – albeit sometimes just a small difference. A systematic review showed higher levels of vitamins and antioxidants in some (though not all) organic fruit and vegetables as well as lower levels of pesticide residues and heavy metals…. https://www.bbcgoodfood.com/howto/guide/organic

Organic production may come at a cost according to a study by Sweden’s Chalmers Institute of Technology.

Science Daily reported in Organic food worse for the climate?

Organically farmed food has a bigger climate impact than conventionally farmed food, due to the greater areas of land required. This is the finding of a new international study involving Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden, published in the journal Nature.
The researchers developed a new method for assessing the climate impact from land-use, and used this, along with other methods, to compare organic and conventional food production. The results show that organic food can result in much greater emissions.
“Our study shows that organic peas, farmed in Sweden, have around a 50 percent bigger climate impact than conventionally farmed peas. For some foodstuffs, there is an even bigger difference — for example, with organic Swedish winter wheat the difference is closer to 70 percent,” says Stefan Wirsenius, an associate professor from Chalmers, and one of those responsible for the study.
The reason why organic food is so much worse for the climate is that the yields per hectare are much lower, primarily because fertilisers are not used. To produce the same amount of organic food, you therefore need a much bigger area of land.
The ground-breaking aspect of the new study is the conclusion that this difference in land usage results in organic food causing a much larger climate impact.
“The greater land-use in organic farming leads indirectly to higher carbon dioxide emissions, thanks to deforestation,” explains Stefan Wirsenius. “The world’s food production is governed by international trade, so how we farm in Sweden influences deforestation in the tropics. If we use more land for the same amount of food, we contribute indirectly to bigger deforestation elsewhere in the world.”
Even organic meat and dairy products are — from a climate point of view — worse than their conventionally produced equivalents, claims Stefan Wirsenius.
“Because organic meat and milk production uses organic feed-stock, it also requires more land than conventional production. This means that the findings on organic wheat and peas in principle also apply to meat and milk products. We have not done any specific calculations on meat and milk, however, and have no concrete examples of this in the article,” he explains.
A new metric: Carbon Opportunity Cost
The researchers used a new metric, which they call “Carbon Opportunity Cost,” to evaluate the effect of greater land-use contributing to higher carbon dioxide emissions from deforestation. This metric takes into account the amount of carbon that is stored in forests, and thus released as carbon dioxide as an effect of deforestation. The study is among the first in the world to make use of this metric…. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/12/181213101308.htm

Citation:

Organic food worse for the climate?
Date: December 13, 2018
Source: Chalmers University of Technology
Summary:
Organically farmed food has a bigger climate impact than conventionally farmed food, due to the greater areas of land required, a new study finds.
Journal Reference:
Timothy D. Searchinger, Stefan Wirsenius, Tim Beringer, Patrice Dumas. Assessing the efficiency of changes in land use for mitigating climate change. Nature, 2018; 564 (7735): 249 DOI: 10.1038/s41586-018-0757-z

Here is the press release from Chalmers Institute of Technology:

PUBLIC RELEASE: 13-DEC-2018
Organic food worse for the climate
Organically farmed food has a bigger climate impact than conventionally farmed food, due to the greater areas of land required. This is the finding of a new international study, published in the journal Nature
CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
SHARE
PRINT E-MAIL
Organically farmed food has a bigger climate impact than conventionally farmed food, due to the greater areas of land required. This is the finding of a new international study involving Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden, published in the journal Nature.
The researchers developed a new method for assessing the climate impact from land-use, and used this, along with other methods, to compare organic and conventional food production. The results show that organic food can result in much greater emissions.
“Our study shows that organic peas, farmed in Sweden, have around a 50 percent bigger climate impact than conventionally farmed peas. For some foodstuffs, there is an even bigger difference – for example, with organic Swedish winter wheat the difference is closer to 70 percent,” says Stefan Wirsenius, an associate professor from Chalmers, and one of those responsible for the study.
The reason why organic food is so much worse for the climate is that the yields per hectare are much lower, primarily because fertilisers are not used. To produce the same amount of organic food, you therefore need a much bigger area of land.
The ground-breaking aspect of the new study is the conclusion that this difference in land usage results in organic food causing a much larger climate impact.
“The greater land-use in organic farming leads indirectly to higher carbon dioxide emissions, thanks to deforestation,” explains Stefan Wirsenius. “The world’s food production is governed by international trade, so how we farm in Sweden influences deforestation in the tropics. If we use more land for the same amount of food, we contribute indirectly to bigger deforestation elsewhere in the world.”
Even organic meat and dairy products are – from a climate point of view – worse than their conventionally produced equivalents, claims Stefan Wirsenius.
“Because organic meat and milk production uses organic feed-stock, it also requires more land than conventional production. This means that the findings on organic wheat and peas in principle also apply to meat and milk products. We have not done any specific calculations on meat and milk, however, and have no concrete examples of this in the article,” he explains.
A new metric: Carbon Opportunity Cost
The researchers used a new metric, which they call “Carbon Opportunity Cost”, to evaluate the effect of greater land-use contributing to higher carbon dioxide emissions from deforestation. This metric takes into account the amount of carbon that is stored in forests, and thus released as carbon dioxide as an effect of deforestation. The study is among the first in the world to make use of this metric.
“The fact that more land use leads to greater climate impact has not often been taken into account in earlier comparisons between organic and conventional food,” says Stefan Wirsenius. “This is a big oversight, because, as our study shows, this effect can be many times bigger than the greenhouse gas effects, which are normally included. It is also serious because today in Sweden, we have politicians whose goal is to increase production of organic food. If that goal is implemented, the climate influence from Swedish food production will probably increase a lot.”
So why have earlier studies not taken into account land-use and its relationship to carbon dioxide emissions?
“There are surely many reasons. An important explanation, I think, is simply an earlier lack of good, easily applicable methods for measuring the effect. Our new method of measurement allows us to make broad environmental comparisons, with relative ease,” says Stefan Wirsenius.
The results of the study are published in the article “Assessing the efficiency of changes in land use for mitigating climate change” in the journal Nature. The article is written by Timothy Searchinger, Princeton University, Stefan Wirsenius, Chalmers University of Technology, Tim Beringer, Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, and Patrice Dumas, Cired.
More on: The consumer perspective
Stefan Wirsenius notes that the findings do not mean that conscientious consumers should simply switch to buying non-organic food. “The type of food is often much more important. For example, eating organic beans or organic chicken is much better for the climate than to eat conventionally produced beef,” he says. “Organic food does have several advantages compared with food produced by conventional methods,” he continues. “For example, it is better for farm animal welfare. But when it comes to the climate impact, our study shows that organic food is a much worse alternative, in general.”
For consumers who want to contribute to the positive aspects of organic food production, without increasing their climate impact, an effective way is to focus instead on the different impacts of different types of meat and vegetables in our diet. Replacing beef and lamb, as well as hard cheeses, with vegetable proteins such as beans, has the biggest effect. Pork, chicken, fish and eggs also have a substantially lower climate impact than beef and lamb.
See also earlier press release from 24 February 2016: Better technology could take agriculture halfway towards climate targets https://www.mynewsdesk.com/uk/chalmers/pressreleases/better-technology-could-take-agriculture-halfway-towards-climate-targets-1325077
More on: The conflict between different environmental goals
In organic farming, no fertilisers are used. The goal is to use resources like energy, land and water in a long-term, sustainable way. Crops are primarily nurtured through nutrients present in the soil. The main aims are greater biological diversity and a balance between animal and plant sustainability. Only naturally derived pesticides are used.
The arguments for organic food focus on consumers’ health, animal welfare, and different aspects of environmental policy. There is good justification for these arguments, but at the same time, there is a lack of scientific evidence to show that organic food is in general healthier and more environmentally friendly than conventionally farmed food, according to the National Food Administration of Sweden and others. The variation between farms is big, with the interpretation differing depending on what environmental goals one prioritises. At the same time, current analysis methods are unable to fully capture all aspects.
The authors of the study now claim that organically farmed food is worse for the climate, due to bigger land use. For this argument they use statistics from the Swedish Board of Agriculture on the total production in Sweden, and the yields per hectare for organic versus conventional farming for the years 2013-2015.
Source (in Swedish): https://www.jordbruksverket.se/webdav/files/SJV/Amnesomraden/Statistik,%20fakta/Vegetabilieproduktion/JO14/JO14SM1801/JO14SM1801_ikortadrag.htm

HRF lists the pros and cons of organic farming:

Here Are the Pros of Organic Farming
Many people don’t actually realize that organic farming is just as much about the soil that is used to grow crops and livestock as it is about the final result that is on their dinner table. Organic methods help to keep soil nutrient-rich, allowing for continued cycles of land productivity. This is achieved through crop rotation, natural fertilization methods, and chemical-free care.
Because there are no chemicals used in the process of organic farming, the nutritional content of the foods being produced are often higher. The micro-nutrients that the combination of rich soil and a lack of chemicals provides can lead to a much better standard of health. This is because chemicals often caused produce to mature faster, thereby eliminating many of the nutrients that the natural ripening process would create.
Here Are the Cons of Organic Farming
The primary reason why people choose not to consume organic foods is the cost. Organic foods are often 20% higher in cost, if not more, and many families simply cannot afford that additional burden. The reason why costs are higher is because organic foods create a lower overall ratio of production. Most organic products are not as resistant to heat or a lack of water, meaning that a bad season will create a very low yield.
Organic foods are also not always available because they are grown in season instead of through artificial methods. Though this issue is reduced thanks to the current global transportation network of food products, some foods simply aren’t available except for a specific time during the season. This lack of demand causes people to then sometimes abandon that type of food for something else they love that is available year-round…. https://healthresearchfunding.org/organic-farming-pros-cons/

The key question regarding organic production is whether it is sustainable.

Nancy Bazilchuk wrote in the Science Nordic article, How sustainable is organic food?
Organic food is romanticized

Arne Grønlund, senior scientist at the Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research (NIBIO), believes that the romantic view of organic food production as something natural is simply wrong.
“This perception gives the consumer a false impression. Organic food production appears to be natural, and consumers see as positive,” he says. “But what the consumer doesn’t think about is that agriculture is in no way natural. Food produced using agricultural means is not produced in harmony with nature, whether it is grown by organic or conventional methods….” http://sciencenordic.com/how-sustainable-organic-food

Whether policymakers move from the romantic to reality remains a question.

Resources:

Organic foods: Are they safer? More nutritious? https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/organic-food/art-20043880

Organic Foods: What You Need to Know: The Benefits and Basics of Organic Food and How to Keep It Affordable                                               https://www.helpguide.org/articles/healthy-eating/organic-foods.htm

How College Students Are Being Misled About ‘Sustainable’ Agriculture https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/05/organic-farming-not-sustainable/

Where information leads to Hope. © Dr. Wilda.com

Dr. Wilda says this about that ©

Blogs by Dr. Wilda:

COMMENTS FROM AN OLD FART©
http://drwildaoldfart.wordpress.com/

Dr. Wilda Reviews ©
http://drwildareviews.wordpress.com/

Dr. Wilda ©
https://drwilda.com/

University of Washington study: New houseplant can clean your home’s air

1 Jan

Elizabeth Palermo wrote in the Live Science article, Do Indoor Plants Really Clean the Air?

Sure, that potted fern is pretty, but can it really spruce up the air quality in your home? Studies by scientists at NASA, Pennsylvania State University, the University of Georgia and other respected institutions suggest that it can.
Plants are notoriously adept at absorbing gases through pores on the surface of their leaves. It’s this skill that facilitates photosynthesis, the process by which plants convert light energy and carbon dioxide into chemical energy to fuel growth.
But scientists studying the air-purification capacities of indoor plants have found that plants can absorb many other gases in addition to carbon dioxide, including a long list of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Benzene (found in some plastics, fabrics, pesticides and cigarette smoke) and formaldehyde (found in some cosmetics, dish detergent, fabric softener and carpet cleaner) are examples of common indoor VOCs that plants help eliminate…. https://www.livescience.com/38445-indoor-plants-clean-air.html

Research from the University of Washington supports Palermo’s article.

Science Daily reported in New houseplant can clean your home’s air:

We like to keep the air in our homes as clean as possible, and sometimes we use HEPA air filters to keep offending allergens and dust particles at bay.
But some hazardous compounds are too small to be trapped in these filters. Small molecules like chloroform, which is present in small amounts in chlorinated water, or benzene, which is a component of gasoline, build up in our homes when we shower or boil water, or when we store cars or lawn mowers in attached garages. Both benzene and chloroform exposure have been linked to cancer.
Now researchers at the University of Washington have genetically modified a common houseplant — pothos ivy — to remove chloroform and benzene from the air around it. The modified plants express a protein, called 2E1, that transforms these compounds into molecules that the plants can then use to support their own growth. The team will publish its findings Wednesday, Dec. 19 in Environmental Science & Technology….
The team decided to use a protein called cytochrome P450 2E1, or 2E1 for short, which is present in all mammals, including humans. In our bodies, 2E1 turns benzene into a chemical called phenol and chloroform into carbon dioxide and chloride ions. But 2E1 is located in our livers and is turned on when we drink alcohol. So it’s not available to help us process pollutants in our air….
The researchers made a synthetic version of the gene that serves as instructions for making the rabbit form of 2E1. Then they introduced it into pothos ivy so that each cell in the plant expressed the protein. Pothos ivy doesn’t flower in temperate climates so the genetically modified plants won’t be able to spread via pollen.
“This whole process took more than two years,” said lead author Long Zhang, who is a research scientist in the civil and environmental engineering department. “That is a long time, compared to other lab plants, which might only take a few months. But we wanted to do this in pothos because it’s a robust houseplant that grows well under all sort of conditions.”
The researchers then tested how well their modified plants could remove the pollutants from air compared to normal pothos ivy. They put both types of plants in glass tubes and then added either benzene or chloroform gas into each tube. Over 11 days, the team tracked how the concentration of each pollutant changed in each tube.
For the unmodified plants, the concentration of either gas didn’t change over time. But for the modified plants, the concentration of chloroform dropped by 82 percent after three days, and it was almost undetectable by day six. The concentration of benzene also decreased in the modified plant vials, but more slowly: By day eight, the benzene concentration had dropped by about 75 percent…. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/12/181219093911.htm

Citation:

New houseplant can clean your home’s air
Date: December 19, 2018
Source: University of Washington
Summary:
Researchers have genetically modified a common houseplant to remove chloroform and benzene from the air around it.
Journal Reference:
Long Zhang, Ryan Routsong, Stuart E. Strand. Greatly Enhanced Removal of Volatile Organic Carcinogens by a Genetically Modified Houseplant, Pothos Ivy (Epipremnum aureum) Expressing the Mammalian Cytochrome P450 2e1 Gene. Environmental Science & Technology, 2018; DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.8b04811

Here is the press release from the University of Washington:

December 19, 2018
Researchers develop a new houseplant that can clean your home’s air
Sarah McQuate
UW News
We like to keep the air in our homes as clean as possible, and sometimes we use HEPA air filters to keep offending allergens and dust particles at bay.
But some hazardous compounds are too small to be trapped in these filters. Small molecules like chloroform, which is present in small amounts in chlorinated water, or benzene, which is a component of gasoline, build up in our homes when we shower or boil water, or when we store cars or lawn mowers in attached garages. Both benzene and chloroform exposure have been linked to cancer.
Now researchers at the University of Washington have genetically modified a common houseplant — pothos ivy — to remove chloroform and benzene from the air around it. The modified plants express a protein, called 2E1, that transforms these compounds into molecules that the plants can then use to support their own growth. The team published its findings Dec. 19 in Environmental Science & Technology.
“People haven’t really been talking about these hazardous organic compounds in homes, and I think that’s because we couldn’t do anything about them,” said senior author Stuart Strand, who is a research professor in the UW’s civil and environmental engineering department. “Now we’ve engineered houseplants to remove these pollutants for us.”
The team decided to use a protein called cytochrome P450 2E1, or 2E1 for short, which is present in all mammals, including humans. In our bodies, 2E1 turns benzene into a chemical called phenol and chloroform into carbon dioxide and chloride ions. But 2E1 is located in our livers and is turned on when we drink alcohol. So it’s not available to help us process pollutants in our air.
“We decided we should have this reaction occur outside of the body in a plant, an example of the ‘green liver’ concept,” Strand said. “And 2E1 can be beneficial for the plant, too. Plants use carbon dioxide and chloride ions to make their food, and they use phenol to help make components of their cell walls.”
The researchers made a synthetic version of the gene that serves as instructions for making the rabbit form of 2E1. Then they introduced it into pothos ivy so that each cell in the plant expressed the protein. Pothos ivy doesn’t flower in temperate climates so the genetically modified plants won’t be able to spread via pollen.
“This whole process took more than two years,” said lead author Long Zhang, who is a research scientist in the civil and environmental engineering department. “That is a long time, compared to other lab plants, which might only take a few months. But we wanted to do this in pothos because it’s a robust houseplant that grows well under all sort of conditions.”
The researchers then tested how well their modified plants could remove the pollutants from air compared to normal pothos ivy. They put both types of plants in glass tubes and then added either benzene or chloroform gas into each tube. Over 11 days, the team tracked how the concentration of each pollutant changed in each tube.
For the unmodified plants, the concentration of either gas didn’t change over time. But for the modified plants, the concentration of chloroform dropped by 82 percent after three days, and it was almost undetectable by day six. The concentration of benzene also decreased in the modified plant vials, but more slowly: By day eight, the benzene concentration had dropped by about 75 percent.
In order to detect these changes in pollutant levels, the researchers used much higher pollutant concentrations than are typically found in homes. But the team expects that the home levels would drop similarly, if not faster, over the same time frame.
Plants in the home would also need to be inside an enclosure with something to move air past their leaves, like a fan, Strand said.
“If you had a plant growing in the corner of a room, it will have some effect in that room,” he said. “But without air flow, it will take a long time for a molecule on the other end of the house to reach the plant.”
The team is currently working to increase the plants’ capabilities by adding a protein that can break down another hazardous molecule found in home air: formaldehyde, which is present in some wood products, such as laminate flooring and cabinets, and tobacco smoke.
“These are all stable compounds, so it’s really hard to get rid of them,” Strand said. “Without proteins to break down these molecules, we’d have to use high-energy processes to do it. It’s so much simpler and more sustainable to put these proteins all together in a houseplant.”
Civil and environmental engineering research technician Ryan Routsong is also a co-author. This research was funded by the National Science Foundation, Amazon Catalyst at UW and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
###
For more information, contact Strand at sstrand@uw.edu or 206-543-5350.

Joan Clark lists 17 plants that clean indoor air.

Clark wrote in 17 plants that clean indoor air:

Many people think that air pollution only consists of smog or car emissions. While these do constitute as outdoor air pollution, there is a much more dangerous kind of air pollution known as indoor air pollution.
Indoor air pollution is more hazardous than outdoor air pollution because it is a more concentrated type of pollution that is caused by inadequate ventilation, toxic products, humidity, and high temperatures. Thankfully, numerous plants clean the air.
• Aloe Vera
• Warneck Dracaena (Dracaena deremensis warneckii)
• Snake Plant (Sansevieria trifasciata)
• Golden Pothos (Scindapsus aureus)
• Chrysanthemum (Chrysantheium morifolium)
• Red-edged Dracaena (Dracaena marginata)
• Weeping Fig (Ficus benjamina)
• Chinese Evergreen (Aglaonema Crispum)
• Azalea (Rhododendron simsii)
• English Ivy (Hedera helix)
• Bamboo Palm (Chamaedorea sefritzii)
• Heart Leaf Philodendron (Philodendron oxycardium)
• Peace Lily (Spathiphyllum)
• Spider Plant (Chlorophytum comosum)
• Boston Fern (Nephrolepis exaltata)
• Gerbera Daisy (Gerbera jamesonii)
• Rubber Plant (Ficus elastica) https://www.tipsbulletin.com/plants-that-clean-the-air/

Consumer Reports noted that indoor air can be polluted.

Mary H.J. Farrell wrote in the Consumer Reports article, How to Improve Indoor Air Quality: The air in your house can be five times more polluted than the air outside:

Your windows may be spotless and your floors may sparkle, but for millions of adults and children with allergies, asthma, and other respiratory conditions, a house is only as clean as its air.
Though it might be hard to believe, ¬indoor air can be five times dirtier than what we breathe outside, exposing us to carcinogens, including radon and formaldehyde, as well as quotidian lung-gunking impurities, such as pollen, dust mites, pet dander, and a variety of particulate matter created when we burn candles or cook…. https://www.consumerreports.org/indoor-air-quality/how-to-improve-indoor-air-quality/

Using plants to clean indoor air pollution is part of a strategy to reduce indoor pollutants.

Where information leads to Hope. © Dr. Wilda.com

Dr. Wilda says this about that ©

Blogs by Dr. Wilda:

COMMENTS FROM AN OLD FART©                                              http://drwildaoldfart.wordpress.com/

Dr. Wilda Reviews ©
https://drwildareviews.wordpress.com/

Dr. Wilda ©
https://drwilda.com/

American Society of Nephrology study: Sugar-sweetened beverage pattern linked to higher kidney disease risk

30 Dec

Kerry Torrens, nutritional therapist wrote in The truth about sugar:

The instant ‘lift’ we get from sugar is one of the reasons we turn to it at times of celebration or when we crave comfort or reward. However, even those of us without a sweet tooth may be eating more than we realise because so many everyday processed foods, from cereals and bread to pasta sauce and soups contain sugar…. http://www.bbcgoodfood.com/howto/guide/truth-about-sugar
There are many medical reasons for reducing sugar in one’s diet. The issue for many reduced or sugar free products is can palates educated to the taste of sugar adapt to a different option?

An American Society of Nephrology study reported that a sugar-sweetened beverage pattern was linked to a higher risk of kidney disease.

Science Daily reported in Sugar-sweetened beverage pattern linked to higher kidney disease risk:

Higher collective consumption of sweetened fruit drinks, soda, and water was associated with a higher likelihood of developing chronic kidney disease (CKD) in a community-based study of African-American adults in Mississippi. The findings, which appear in an upcoming issue of the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology (CJASN), contribute to the growing body of evidence pointing to the negative health consequences of consuming sugar-sweetened beverages.
Certain beverages may affect kidney health, but study results have been inconsistent. To provide more clarity, Casey Rebholz PhD, MS, MNSP, MPH (Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health) and her colleagues prospectively studied 3003 African-American men and women with normal kidney function who were enrolled in the Jackson Heart Study.
“There is a lack of comprehensive information on the health implications of the wide range of beverage options that are available in the food supply,” said Dr. Rebholz. “In particular, there is limited information on which types of beverages and patterns of beverages are associated with kidney disease risk in particular.”
For their study, the investigators assessed beverage intake through a food frequency questionnaire administered at the start of the study in 2000-04, and they followed participants until 2009-13.
Among the 3003 participants, 185 (6%) developed CKD over a median follow-up of 8 years. After adjustment for confounding factors, consuming a beverage pattern consisting of soda, sweetened fruit drinks, and water was associated with a higher risk of developing CKD. Participants in the top tertile for consumption of this beverage pattern were 61% more likely to develop CKD than those in the bottom tertile.
The researchers were surprised to see that water was a component of this beverage pattern that was linked with a higher risk of CKD. They noted that study participants may have reported their consumption of a wide variety of types of water, including flavored and sweetened water. Unfortunately, the investigators did not collect information about specific brands or types of bottled water in the Jackson Heart Study.
In an accompanying editorial, Holly Kramer, MD, MPH and David Shoham, PhD (Loyola University Chicago) noted that the findings hold strong public health implications. “While a few select U.S. cities have successfully reduced SSB [sugar sweetened beverage] consumption via taxation, all other municipalities have resisted public health efforts to lower SSB consumption,” they wrote. “This cultural resistance to reducing SSB consumption can be compared to the cultural resistance to smoking cessation during the 1960s after the Surgeon General report was released. During the 1960s, tobacco use was viewed as a social choice and not a medical or social public health problem….” https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/12/181228091642.htm

Citation:

Sugar-sweetened beverage pattern linked to higher kidney disease risk
Date: December 28, 2018
Source: American Society of Nephrology
Summary:
In a study of African-American men and women with normal kidney function, a pattern of higher collective consumption of soda, sweetened fruit drinks, and water was associated with a higher risk of developing kidney disease.
Journal Reference:
Casey M. Rebholz, Bessie A. Young, Ronit Katz, Katherine L. Tucker, Teresa C. Carithers, Arnita F. Norwood, Adolfo Correa. Patterns of Beverages Consumed and Risk of Incident Kidney Disease. Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, 2018; CJN.06380518 DOI: 10.2215/CJN.06380518

Here is the press release from American Society of Nephrology:

PUBLIC RELEASE: 27-DEC-2018
Sugar-sweetened beverage pattern linked to higher kidney disease risk
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF NEPHROLOGY
SHARE
PRINT E-MAIL
Highlight
• In a study of African-American men and women with normal kidney function, a pattern of higher collective consumption of soda, sweetened fruit drinks, and water was associated with a higher risk of developing kidney disease.
Washington, DC (December 27, 2018) — Higher collective consumption of sweetened fruit drinks, soda, and water was associated with a higher likelihood of developing chronic kidney disease (CKD) in a community-based study of African-American adults in Mississippi. The findings, which appear in an upcoming issue of the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology (CJASN), contribute to the growing body of evidence pointing to the negative health consequences of consuming sugar-sweetened beverages.
Certain beverages may affect kidney health, but study results have been inconsistent. To provide more clarity, Casey Rebholz PhD, MS, MNSP, MPH (Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health) and her colleagues prospectively studied 3003 African-American men and women with normal kidney function who were enrolled in the Jackson Heart Study.
“There is a lack of comprehensive information on the health implications of the wide range of beverage options that are available in the food supply,” said Dr. Rebholz. “In particular, there is limited information on which types of beverages and patterns of beverages are associated with kidney disease risk in particular.”
For their study, the investigators assessed beverage intake through a food frequency questionnaire administered at the start of the study in 2000-04, and they followed participants until 2009-13.
Among the 3003 participants, 185 (6%) developed CKD over a median follow-up of 8 years. After adjustment for confounding factors, consuming a beverage pattern consisting of soda, sweetened fruit drinks, and water was associated with a higher risk of developing CKD. Participants in the top tertile for consumption of this beverage pattern were 61% more likely to develop CKD than those in the bottom tertile.
The researchers were surprised to see that water was a component of this beverage pattern that was linked with a higher risk of CKD. They noted that study participants may have reported their consumption of a wide variety of types of water, including flavored and sweetened water. Unfortunately, the investigators did not collect information about specific brands or types of bottled water in the Jackson Heart Study.
In an accompanying editorial, Holly Kramer, MD, MPH and David Shoham, PhD (Loyola University Chicago) noted that the findings hold strong public health implications. “While a few select U.S. cities have successfully reduced SSB [sugar sweetened beverage] consumption via taxation, all other municipalities have resisted public health efforts to lower SSB consumption,” they wrote. “This cultural resistance to reducing SSB consumption can be compared to the cultural resistance to smoking cessation during the 1960s after the Surgeon General report was released. During the 1960s, tobacco use was viewed as a social choice and not a medical or social public health problem.”
In an accompanying Patient Voice editorial, Duane Sunwold explained that he is a patient with CKD who changed his eating and drinking patterns to put his disease in remission. As a chef, he offers a number of recommendations to fellow patients trying to decrease their consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks.
###
Study co-authors include Bessie Young, MD, MPH, Ronit Katz, PhD, Katherine Tucker, PhD, Teresa Carithers, PhD, RD, LD, Arnita Norwood, PhD, MPH, RD, and Adolfo Correa, MD, PhD, MPH.
Disclosures: The authors reported no financial disclosures.
The article, entitled “Patterns of Beverages Consumed and Risk of Incident Kidney Disease,” will appear online at http://cjasn.asnjournals.org/ on December 27, 2018, doi: 10.2215/CJN.06380518.
The accompanying editorial, entitled “The Millennial Physician and the Obesity Epidemic: A Tale of Sugar Sweetened Beverages,” will appear online at http://cjasn.asnjournals.org/ on December 27, 2018.
The Patient Voice editorial, entitled “Diet and Risk for Developing Kidney Disease,” will appear online at http://cjasn.asnjournals.org/ on December 27, 2018.
The content of this article does not reflect the views or opinions of The American Society of Nephrology (ASN). Responsibility for the information and views expressed therein lies entirely with the author(s). ASN does not offer medical advice. All content in ASN publications is for informational purposes only, and is not intended to cover all possible uses, directions, precautions, drug interactions, or adverse effects. This content should not be used during a medical emergency or for the diagnosis or treatment of any medical condition. Please consult your doctor or other qualified health care provider if you have any questions about a medical condition, or before taking any drug, changing your diet or commencing or discontinuing any course of treatment. Do not ignore or delay obtaining professional medical advice because of information accessed through ASN. Call 911 or your doctor for all medical emergencies.
Since 1966, ASN has been leading the fight to prevent, treat, and cure kidney diseases throughout the world by educating health professionals and scientists, advancing research and innovation, communicating new knowledge, and advocating for the highest quality care for patients. ASN has more than 20,000 members representing 131 countries. For more information, please visit http://www.asn-online.org or contact the society at 202-640-4660.
Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.

The Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health reported about the effects of sugary drinks in Soft Drinks and Disease.

According to the Chan School:

Soft drinks are the beverage of choice for millions of Americans, but sugary drinks increase the risk of type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and other chronic conditions.
• People who consume sugary drinks regularly—1 to 2 cans a day or more—have a 26% greater risk of developing type 2 diabetes than people who rarely have such drinks. (46)
• A study that followed 40,000 men for two decades found that those who averaged one can of a sugary beverage per day had a 20% higher risk of having a heart attack or dying from a heart attack than men who rarely consumed sugary drinks. (47) A related study in women found a similar sugary beverage–heart disease link. (48)
• A 22-year-long study of 80,000 women found that those who consumed a can a day of sugary drink had a 75% higher risk of gout than women who rarely had such drinks. (49) Researchers found a similarly-elevated risk in men. (50)
• Dr. Frank Hu, Professor of Nutrition and Epidemiology at Harvard School of Public Health, recently made a strong case that there is sufficient scientific evidence that decreasing sugar-sweetened beverage consumption will reduce the prevalence of obesity and obesity-related diseases. (51)…. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-drinks/soft-drinks-and-disease/

Each individual should consult competent medical professionals about their individual dietary needs.

Resources:

Diabetes Myths                                                                                  http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/myths/

Does Eating Sugar Cause Diabetes?                         https://www.webmd.com/diabetes/video/kahn-eating-sugar-cause-diabetes

Diabetes                                                                                         https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/diabetes/symptoms-causes/syc-20371444

Where information leads to Hope. © Dr. Wilda.com

Dr. Wilda says this about that ©

Blogs by Dr. Wilda:

COMMENTS FROM AN OLD FART©
http://drwildaoldfart.wordpress.com/

Dr. Wilda Reviews ©
http://drwildareviews.wordpress.com/

Dr. Wilda ©
https://drwilda.com/