Colin Butler

Food livestock production energy climate change and health.

Food provides energy and nutrients, but its acquisition requires energy expenditure. In post-hunter-gatherer societies, extra-somatic energy has greatly expanded and intensified the catching, gathering, and production of food. Modern relations between energy, food, and health are very complex, raising serious, high-level policy challenges. Together with persistent widespread under-nutrition, over-nutrition (and sedentarism) is causing obesity and associated serious health consequences. Worldwide, agricultural activity, especially livestock production, accounts for about a fifth of total greenhouse-gas emissions, thus contributing to climate change and its adverse health consequences, including the threat to food yields in many regions. Particular policy attention should be paid to the health risks posed by the rapid worldwide growth in meat consumption, both by exacerbating climate change and by directly contributing to certain diseases. To prevent increased greenhouse-gas emissions from this production sector, both the average worldwide consumption level of animal products and the intensity of emissions from livestock production must be reduced. An international contraction and convergence strategy offers a feasible route to such a goal. The current global average meat consumption is 100 g per person per day, with about a ten-fold variation between high-consuming and low-consuming populations. 90 g per day is proposed as a working global target, shared more evenly, with not more than 50 g per day coming from red meat from ruminants (ie, cattle, sheep, goats, and other digastric grazers).

Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: food and agriculture

Agricultural food production and agriculturally-related change in land use substantially contribute to greenhouse-gas emissions worldwide. Four-fifths of agricultural emissions arise from the livestock sector. Although livestock products are a source of some essential nutrients, they provide large amounts of saturated fat, which is a known risk factor for cardiovascular disease. We considered potential strategies for the agricultural sector to meet the target recommended by the UK Committee on Climate Change to reduce UK emissions from the concentrations recorded in 1990 by 80% by 2050, which would require a 50% reduction by 2030. With use of the UK as a case study, we identified that a combination of agricultural technological improvements and a 30% reduction in livestock production would be needed to meet this target; in the absence of good emissions data from Brazil, we assumed for illustrative purposes that the required reductions would be the same for our second case study in São Paulo city. We then used these data to model the potential benefits of reduced consumption of livestock products on the burden of ischaemic heart disease: disease burden would decrease by about 15% in the UK (equivalent to 2850 disability-adjusted life-years [DALYs] per million population in 1 year) and 16% in São Paulo city (equivalent to 2180 DALYs per million population in 1 year). Although likely to yield benefits to health, such a strategy will probably encounter cultural, political, and commercial resistance, and face technical challenges. Coordinated intersectoral action is needed across agricultural, nutritional, public health, and climate change communities worldwide to provide affordable, healthy, low-emission diets for all societies.

Energy and Human Health

Energy use is central to human society and provides many health benefits. But each source of energy entails some health risks. This article reviews the health impacts of each major source of energy, focusing on those with major implications for the burden of disease globally. The biggest health impacts accrue to the harvesting and burning of solid fuels, coal and biomass, mainly in the form of occupational health risks and household and general ambient air pollution. Lack of access to clean fuels and electricity in the worlds poor households is a particularly serious risk for health. Although energy efficiency brings many benefits, it also entails some health risks, as do renewable energy systems, if not managed carefully. We do not review health impacts of climate change itself, which are due mostly to climate-altering pollutants from energy systems, but do discuss the potential for achieving near-term health cobenefits by reducing certain climate-related emissions.

Suicide and drought in New South Wales, Australia, 1970–2007

There is concern in Australia that droughts substantially increase the incidence of suicide in rural populations, particularly among male farmers and their families. We investigated this possibility for the state of New South Wales (NSW), Australia between 1970 and 2007, analyzing data on suicides with a previously established climatic drought index. Using a generalized additive model that controlled for season, region, and long-term suicide trends, we found an increased relative risk of suicide of 15% (95% confidence interval, 8%–22%) for rural males aged 30–49 y when the drought index rose from the first quartile to the third quartile. In contrast, the risk of suicide for rural females aged >30 y declined with increased values of the drought index. We also observed an increased risk of suicide in spring and early summer. In addition there was a smaller association during unusually warm months at any time of year. The spring suicide increase is well documented in nontropical locations, although its cause is unknown. The possible increased risk of suicide during drought in rural Australia warrants public health focus and concern, as does the annual, predictable increase seen each spring and early summer. Suicide is a complex phenomenon with many interacting social, environmental, and biological causal factors. The relationship between drought and suicide is best understood using a holistic framework. Climate change projections suggest increased frequency and severity of droughts in NSW, accompanied and exacerbated by rising temperatures. Elucidating the relationships between drought and mental health will help facilitate adaptation to climate change.

Primary, secondary and tertiary effects of eco-climatic change: the medical response

Climatic and ecological change threaten human health globally. Manifestations include lost species, vanishing glaciers and more frequent heavy rain. In the second half of this century, accelerating sea level rise is likely to cause crop loss, and population dislocation. These problems may be magnified by dysfunctional human responses, including conflict. The population health consequences of these events can be classified as primary, secondary and tertiary. Primary signs include the acute and chronic stress of heat waves, and trauma from increased bush fires and flooding. Secondary signs are indirect, such as an altered distribution of arthropod vectors, intermediate hosts and pathogens that will produce changes in the epidemiology of many infectious diseases. More severe future health consequences of climate change are classified here as tertiary effects. If moderate or severe climate change scenarios prove accurate then these manifestations will occur over large areas, and could include famine, war and significant population displacement. Such effects would threaten governance and health. The health professions must respond to these challenges, especially the task of recognising and seeking to minimise tertiary health consequences. The gap between what we know and what we need to know concerning these issues can be narrowed by a new field of medical practice. The framework for this emerging discipline includes climate change, ecology and global health. Combined, these dimensions may be called ecomedicine. Actions to reduce individual emissions, to promote active transport (with its ‘co-benefit’ of preventing chronic disease), and involvement in group action to protect the environment and to prevent war, informed by understanding of the health of individual patients and populations, will be central to the practice of ecomedicine.

Action on climate change: the health risks of procrastinating

Objective: The worlds climate will continue to change because of human influence. This is expected to affect health, mostly adversely. We need to compare the projected health effects in Australia arising from differing climate change scenarios to inform greenhouse gas emission (mitigation) policy.

The Routine Use of Antibiotics to Promote Animal Growth Does Little to Benefit Protein Undernutrition in the Developing World

Some persons argue that the routine addition of antibiotics to animal feed will help alleviate protein undernutrition in developing countries by increasing meat production. In contrast, we estimate that, if all routine antibiotic use in animal feed were ceased, there would be negligible effects in these countries. Poultry and pork production are unlikely to decrease by more than 2%. Average daily protein supply would decrease by no more than 0.1 g per person (or 0.2% of total protein intake). Eliminating the routine use of in-feed antibiotics will improve human and animal health, by reducing the development and spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Infectious disease emergence and global change: thinking systemically in a shrinking world

BackgroundConcern intensifying that emerging infectious diseases and global environmental changes that could generate major future human pandemics.MethodA focused literature review was undertaken, partly informed by a forthcoming report on environment, agriculture and infectious diseases of poverty, facilitated by the Special Programme for Tropical Diseases.ResultsMore than ten categories of infectious disease emergence exist, but none formally analyse past, current or future burden of disease. Other evidence suggests that the dominant public health concern focuses on two informal groupings. Most important is the perceived threat of newly recognised infections, especially viruses that arise or are newly discovered in developing countries that originate in species exotic to developed countries, such as non-human primates, bats and rodents. These pathogens may be transmitted by insects or bats, or via direct human contact with bushmeat. The second group is new strains of influenza arising from intensively farmed chickens or pigs, or emerging from Asian “wet markets” where several bird species have close contact. Both forms appear justified because of two great pandemics: HIV/AIDS (which appears to have originated from bushmeat hunting in Africa before emerging globally) and Spanish influenza, which killed up to 2.5% of the human population around the end of World War I. Insufficiently appreciated is the contribution of the milieu which appeared to facilitate the high disease burden in these pandemics. Additionally, excess anxiety over emerging infectious diseases diverts attention from issues of greater public health importance, especially: (i) existing (including neglected) infectious diseases and (ii) the changing milieu that is eroding the determinants of immunity and public health, caused by adverse global environmental changes, including climate change and other components of stressed life and civilisation-supporting systems.ConclusionsThe focus on novel pathogens and minor forms of anti-microbial resistance in emerging disease literature is unjustified by their burden of disease, actual and potential, and diverts attention from far more important health problems and determinants. There is insufficient understanding of systemic factors that promote pandemics. Adverse global change could generate circumstances conducive to future pandemics with a high burden of disease, arising via anti-microbial and insecticidal resistance, under-nutrition, conflict, and public health breakdown.

Time to regenerate: ecosystems and health promotion

Butler and Friel call upon the health promotion community to strongly reengage with environmental and ecological issues.

Promoting Global Population Health While Constraining the Environmental Footprint

Populations today face increasing health risks from human-induced regional and global environmental changes and resultant ecological nonsustainability. Localized environmental degradation that has long accompanied population growth, industrialization, and rising consumerism has now acquired a global and often systemic dimension (e.g., climate change, disrupted nitrogen cycling, biodiversity loss). Thus, the economic intensification and technological advances that previously contributed to health gains have now expanded such that humanitys environmental (and ecological) footprint jeopardizes global population health. International data show, in general, a positive correlation of a populations health with level of affluence and size of per-person footprint. Yet, beyond a modest threshold, larger footprints afford negligible health gain and may impair health (e.g., via the rise of obesity). Furthermore, some lower-income countries have attained high levels of health. Many changes now needed to promote ecological (and social) sustainability will benefit local health. Continued improvement of global health could thus coexist with an equitably shared global environmental footprint.