Sandpaw

A new study has concluded that being ‘one’ with the latest fad, could be inevitably leading to your demise!  The paper from the Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics saw the Australian academics assess the impact of vegetarianism on young women.

After recruiting 308 female participants between the ages of 18-35, the test subjects submitted a physical activity query which also included basics such as height and weight; most importantly a highly detailed dietary assessment was also ascertained.

The Sydney and Macquarie University academics found that young women who restricted animal food groups from their diet had not just slightly lower intakes of omega-3 fatty acids, vitamin B12, selenium and Zinc, but rather significantly lower absorption rates. This was hypothesized to lead to longer term health damage, including a compromised immune system function and iron deficiency which could lead to anemia. Long term deficiency health problems would also be exacerbated under the stress of pregnancy, something which has to be considered within the age bracket of 18-35.

While some would argue that there supplementation of vital vitamins and minerals are sufficient, what has been found is that it is definitely not! The 23% of participants who stated actively avoid meats, most and nearly all, failed to supplement it appropriately. So this isn’t a case of a small minority bringing a bad reputation for the majority but rather quite the opposite! On the bright side, the study did find that the subjects on a whole where physically active and led healthy lifestyles.

Though, to avoid a potential future of nutrient deficient mothers I’d like to raise a proposition, if to be hipster is to be alternative.. and now to be alternative is to be mainstream.. Therefore to be hipster we must now become whatever is not the current hipster trend. I ask you to put your lamb shanks in the air and begin to chow-down on the sustenance of life. Next time you see a hipster friend chewing away on their organic field mushroom between rolling there next cigarette, launch a T-bone firmly into their face and say ‘eat this, you’ll thank me later’.

Phil U4849636 SCOM1001

Title of Publication – Avoidance of meat and poultry decreases intakes of omega-3 fatty acids, vitamin B12, selenium and zinc in young women. 

When I first came across the topic of genetically modified food, I instantly imagined oversized vegetables on a crusade to wipe out world hunger. After exploring the subject of genetically modified harvest in greater depth, it became clear that this wild assumption had nothing to do with the agricultural practices involving GM foods. A variety of factors affect cross-pollination between GM and non-GM crops. These include: wind direction and speed, the ability of a crop to pollinate with insects, the compass orientation of the two relative crops and the length of a crop’s flowering period. The focus on four crop species in Europe (rice, oil seed, maize and sugar beet), of ‘The Effect of Wind Direction on Cross-Pollination in Wind-Pollinated GM Crops.’ By Martin Hoyle and James E. Cresswell (2007) is the basis for my analysis of the issue.

I discovered that cross-pollination between GM and non-GM crops happens with great ease. In particular, the immense human intervention that is required to prevent cross-pollination is somewhat alarming. Personally, I believe that GM crops must occur kilometres away from non-GM crops and under different agricultural management, as to prevent any freak accident of machinery being utilized across both types of crop. The understanding that GM food has been linked to diseases like salmonella suggests that in the Western World, its use is unjustified. Why should we risk disease in order to feed already overfed nations? I understand that a proportion of society endorses the consumption of GM food. However, it is essential that those opposing its consumption are assured that the possibility of cross-pollination occurring is eliminated.

In order to eradicate cross-pollination of GM and non-crops, farmers must ensure that non-GM crops are not downwind of GM crops, as this increases the likelihood of cross-pollination occurring. Also, focus on the activity of crops during its flowering can protect non-GM crops from being affected. As it is particularly influential to oilseed and sugar beet crops, insect behaviour must be monitored by farmers as they contribute significantly to the cross-pollination of each crop.

Those who don’t want to be subject to the negative effects of GM food consumption must be aware of the source of their food. It is truly eye opening to look at the harvest and lack of preventative measures enforced by the agricultural industry across Europe. So I challenge those who care to protect themselves from the harm of the GM based damage that can be inflicted purely out of lack of awareness of the food that is consumed.

Human embryonic stem cells are a topic of research that is far more held back in this country than it should be. They hold so much potential for new ground-breaking treatments in medicine, so many cures for otherwise crippling conditions that it surprises, nay, disgusts me that we as a society have not yet advanced our scientific understanding along that particular path of research. People argue that it is immoral to tamper with a human embryo, that destroying a simple cluster of ungrown cells is akin to killing a life, even though so many people could be saved if we just lift off the red tape that’s been clogging new and exciting avenues of medicine.
Take nerve cells, for example. Our bodies are full of them, and they really are what makes us us. Neither our brains nor our bodies can function without them, and yet whenever they are damaged, they can take decades to repair themselves, if they even repair at all. If we could grow and transplant live and working nerve cells into people, victims of conditions from strokes to paralysis could enjoy life injury free, rather than be constrained by the damage that has been wrought on their bodies. But that’s impossible, you say. How are we going to find those nerve cells? Grow them in a lab like some strange lifesaving mould? That’s when I would say you were wrong. That’s when I would say that that is exactly what scientists in Finland have done, just this very year.
A team of researchers has actually managed to grow nerve cells on the top of a gel, like bacteria. To be completely honest, they grew inside of and underneath the gel as well, but the ones on top are in the kind of condition that would make them perfect for transplanting into a ready and waiting paraplegic. And how did they do this? Embryonic stem cells. That type of cell that has so many religious and ethics groups up in a fuss has successfully been grown like a fungus into the very constituents of your brain and nervous system, using a simple hydrogel. A hydrogel is simply a kind of hyper absorbent plastic, and scientists now have working, living, breathing nerve cells growing atop of it. The potential that human embryonic stem cells hold is not a thing of the far future, it is happening right now, and as soon as these lab-grown nerve cells can be successfully transplanted into patients, we as a species need never fear the trappings of nerve damage ever again

The climate change debate has been surging for over twenty years now, with politicians skipping around the issue and mass media in a constant frenzy around the debate. However, this message is not here to convince you that Climate change is a very real and very current threat. It is instead to discuss the emergence of Geoengineering as a ‘solution to all our problems’.

In a recent paper, the damning points were made that under current climate models severe consequences will emerge and swift action will become necessary (What’s new I asked myself!). However this literature also compounded evidence that even in the unlikely occurrence that all anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases ceased, the planet would continue to warm significantly.

The paper specifically investigated the use of a Stratospheric Sulphate Aerosol: the injection of sulphate gases into the atmosphere in a bid to create a ‘Global Dimming’ effect. The effects were monitored in a highly advanced computer programme; Community Climate System Model (version 3) and experimental conditions were manipulated to effectively model atmosphere-ocean-sea ice models, creating advanced and true to life results.

The research in this paper compounded evidence that was conducted very recently (May 2012), used realistic and complex scenarios, state of the art technology and focused on regions most likely to experience a climate emergency. Its findings are damning for the use of Geoengineering to combat climate change: when global average warming is roughly cancelled by the use of the aerosols, risk regions still experience 20-50% of the temperature changes that could occur in a ‘warmed’ world.

However these findings are the result of just one paper (although in my view using relevant, precise and specific methods of research) – is it feasible to deny the role of Geoengineering in future combating of climate change effects?

Yes. I believe the future of Geoengineering is an extremely risky business for five main reasons:

1. We are unable to predict or specify the results of using climate engineering

2. We are unequipped to deal with problems that may arise from unforeseen negative consequences of climate engineering.

3. From a global society perspective, these methods have potential to create mass conflict and a breakdown in international cooperation

4. Risk of selection of wrong Geoengineering technique could lead to a faster breakdown in climate change

5. And finally, it justifies the perspective that the environment must alter for our needs, instead of us adjusting for its needs.

Geoengineering is an on-going, increasingly popular research area, and in the future may be our only answer to the environmental problems we’ve created by ourselves. But I ask you this, wouldn’t it be easier to step up and make changes now while we still can? To avoid the infinite risks Geoengineering holds? To take responsibility for our actions and ultimately recognise- It’s about changing ourselves, not changing our environment.

Applying sunscreen is a way of ensuring that we protect ourselves from skin cancer and premature ageing. Such a simple act is now becoming dangerous, as many sunscreen manufacturers are including nanoparticles, smaller versions of the chemicals normally used, which have different properties and therefore react with our skin differently.

Since nanoparticles were first used in sunscreens, the scientific community at large is divided about whether or not these particles are safe. The only thing scientists seem to be able to agree upon is the current lack of evidence to prove or disprove this danger. So where does that leave the average consumer who does not care about the intricate scientific background, but would appreciate a definite yes or no as to whether or not nanoparticles are dangerous?

A recent article, published in Toxicology Letters, tested the effect that nano-zinc oxide, a manufactured nanoparticle used in sunscreens has on the DNA of skin cells. This is particularly important, given that damage to DNA can cause cancer. The study found that the nanoparticles were damaging the DNA, and that the more nanoparticles present, the more damage present. More importantly, the study investigated the way in which DNA was being damaged. The study was unable to conclude the exact cause, but it has opened the field for further research. Whilst it would be misleading to proclaim that nano-sunscreens cause cancer, this study (and many others) indicate that nano-sunscreens can cause cellular damage which has the potential to manifest as cancer.

With this in mind, the sole benefit of nano-cosmetics and sunscreens (the fact that it applies to the skin colourlessly) could never outweigh the numerous risks associated with it. When thinking of advances in science that have done more harm than good, one particularly devastating example comes to mind. Thalidomide, the drug prescribed in the late 1950’s to pregnant woman to alleviate morning sickness was soon found to causes severe birth defects in unborn children. Yet, now, remarkably, scientists know more about its chemical structure and it is even being used in the treatment of some cancers. At the time, scientists were unaware of the dangers, until it was too late. But for scientists working in nanotechnology, many are aware of the potential dangers. So why is nothing being done?

It is imperative that we learn from the mistakes of the past. For this reason, scientists, sunscreen manufacturers and governments should exercise more caution and not embrace this technology until they adequately understand and address the dangers. Maybe, like thalidomide, in the future, it could be used safely, but until then, a moratorium should be put in place. The scientific evidence (or in this case, a lack thereof) designates a severe public health risk. For this reason, the public must be made aware, or it could potentially escalate into catastrophic consequences.

My best friend’s an addict. Her brain has learnt to recognise this substance as a reward when things go right and a comfort when things go wrong.  Her anticipation causes a biochemical reaction causing her to feel weak with cravings.  Her drug is sugar.

The reward centre of the brain, a part of the hypothalamus, (containing nerve cells, called Orexin) is activated with the conditioned anticipation of sweet foods. Orexin then wakes up a hormone called insulin which controls the amount of sugar in in the blood stream. Insulin instructs blood cells when to store or release sugar. Once given the nudge by orexin, insulin instructs the blood cells to release sugar in to the skeletal muscles (muscles you voluntarily move), which are hungry for sugar.

In the space of a few milliseconds of thinking about sugary treats, sugar has been transferred from the blood to the muscles causing low blood sugar levels and creating feelings of weakness and cravings’, tricking your body into feeling like it needs sugar.

The media and food companies use this biological magic trick in their advertising.  They pack sugar into anything they can because they know we can’t resist it.

It’s not just my friend that has an addiction, it’s society. You may be addicted but are in denial. It tastes so good, and it makes you feel good, it’s just like a reward.

So… If you just have sugar as a treat, as a reward it’s ok right? Wrong! The more sugar that you have to reward yourself the more your brain links sugar with reward and therefore learns to anticipate it with rewarding situations. This is how we have come to reward ourselves with sweets if we do exercise and if we have been eating healthy for a couple of days.

Combine the bombardment of advertising with the sugar overload in products and this biological trick is likely to cause you a lot of health problems.

The more sugar you consume, the greater chance you have of blood cells ignoring the instructions given to them by insulin. In the same way that teenagers ignore instructions from their parents. This is one of the major factors that lead to type 2 diabetes.

With sugar consumption tripling in the past 50 years, it’s no wonder that Type 2 Diabetes and Obesity are now recognised as the greatest health epidemics in the developed world.

Sure, it’s your choice how you live your life, you control what you want to eat but it’s also your choice if you want to increase your risk of diabetes and other chronic diseases.

Until society’s attitudes towards sugar change, we will continue to see sugar and its advertisements sustaining addictions worldwide, and the cases of Diabetes and obesity increase worldwide.

Just like tobacco and many addictive substances, sugar is a struggle to resist.  Like these substances, it doesn’t kill you outright; it takes away your quality of life, bit by sugary bit.

What do ‘designer babies’ mean to you? Unnatural babies? Freaks of nature? Eugenics? Doesn’t sound great does it? How about Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD)–do those three words mean anything to you? Probably not.

The term ‘designer baby’ was coined by the media and has nothing to do with the scientific community. This association of words has caused a lot of controversy because babies are being presented as commodities. Just as designer bags are marketed and sold in the commercial world.

But people need to get their facts straight. Take a second. Hold back. Think…

The problem with all this is that people are taking everything by face value and aren’t taking the time to understand the ACTUAL SCIENCE behind it all.

So let’s start to consider the science behind all the hype. First and foremost, PGD is used to help–not to cause harm. It is the screening process of genes in embryos and is NOT the genetic modification of embryos. There are NO IDEAL traits being inserted.

PGD is used to prevent genes that cause harmful and devastating diseases. FISH and PCR are the two techniques used to tackle disorders such as Down’s syndrome, cycstic fibrosis and Huntington’s disease.

A study performed by a group of Belgium scientists used FISH-based PGD to deliver healthy twins free of genes vulnerable to cancer. The mother had a problem with one of her genes, which would normally help protect the body from cancer.

If FISH was not used, her babies would have had a strong chance of acquiring the gene and would have been prone to a predisposed cancer syndrome known as Von Hippel-Lindau’s syndrome. Seeing as only healthy embryos were transplanted, PGD prevented the couple from having to make the tough decision of giving birth to a child predisposed to disease or terminating an existing pregnancy.

Now I must admit PGD didn’t mean much to me before. I found it unsettling to even think we could modify babies to fit an ideal. I mean, if we can screen for disease, why not screen for hair colour, athleticism or even intelligence? However, from the study, what I found was designing the ‘perfect baby’ isn’t as simple as it’s made out to be.

Yes, eye colour and hair colour may be selected for. But if that causes controversy then why hasn’t the introduction of hair dyes and coloured eye contacts caused just as much of a stir? Are they not socially accepted manipulations of one’s natural appearance? Traits like athletic ability or intelligence cannot be selected for just by the screening of one gene as they are expressed by multiple genes and influenced just as much by environmental factors.

Gaining a thorough understanding of the science behind PGD and discovering all its benefits made me think about it in a whole new light.  I hope for you the term ‘designer baby’ is rid of your mind and that you start to think about what actually goes on.