GoGreenNation news

Wildfire Smoke Linked to Increased Risk of Dementia

News Feed

Tuesday, November 26, 2024

November 26, 20243 min readWildfire Smoke Linked to Increased Risk of DementiaThe particles that make up wildfire smoke may raise the risk of dementia even more than similar airborne pollutants from other sourcesBy Chelsea Harvey & E&E NewsA firefighter is surrounded by heavy smoke as he battles the advancing Silverado Fire fueled by Santa Ana winds at the 241 toll road and Portola Parkway on October 26, 2020 in Irvine, California. Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times via Getty ImagesCLIMATEWIRE | Wildfire smoke can aggravate a variety of medical conditions, from asthma to heart disease.Now, new research adds another worry to the mix. It can elevate the risk of dementia.A study published Monday in the scientific journal JAMA Neurology, finds that long-term exposure to smoke concentrations is associated with a higher risk of dementia diagnosis over time. For every one microgram increase in wildfire pollution per cubic meter of air over the course of a three-year period, the odds of dementia diagnosis rise by about 18 percent, the study finds.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.That’s compared with each person’s baseline risk of dementia diagnosis, which remains relatively low among the general population. Still, the increased risks are large enough to pose a public health concern.The study focuses on a form of air pollution known as particulate matter — tiny, inhalable particles, with diameters of 2.5 micrometers or smaller. This kind of air pollution can originate from a variety of sources, including automobiles, industrial sources and fires.Previous studies already have suggested that particulate matter can increase the risk of dementia, among other health problems. The new research zooms in specifically on particles produced by wildfire smoke, which can have different chemical and physical properties than particles produced by other sources.The study examined medical records from more than 1 million people in Southern California from 2008 to 2019, all part of the Kaiser Permanente Southern California medical care consortium. It also analyzed air quality records from the same time period to estimate long-term pollution concentrations, including particles stemming directly from wildfire smoke.The study found that wildfire smoke increases the risk of dementia significantly more than particulate matter from other sources. There are several reasons that could be the case, the researchers say.Wildfire smoke particles tend to have higher concentrations of molecules known for toxic or inflammatory properties. And wildfire smoke tends to spike at certain times of the year, compared with other kinds of air pollution — intermittently exposing communities to extremely high pollution concentrations, which may have greater effects on their health.The study also found that certain demographics are at higher risk than others, including people with lower incomes and people of color, including Black, Hispanic and Asian communities.Low-income communities often are at higher risk of exposure to air pollution, the researchers note. Lower quality housing in these communities may allow particulate matter to infiltrate homes more easily, and residents may have less access to air filtration systems.Marginalized groups also may contend with more health challenges, in part because of systemic discrimination, compounding their risks of developing dementia later in life.“We know that climate change impacts the most vulnerable communities first and worst and we appear to see a similar signal in our data,” said Joan Casey, an environmental epidemiologist and co-author of the new study, in an email to POLITICO'S E&E News.Policymakers can take certain steps to protect these vulnerable communities, she added. They can make sure that all communications about public health are issued in multiple languages. And they can push for policies aimed at combating climate change, reducing other sources of air pollution and mitigating wildfires through strategies such as science-based controlled burns.Meanwhile, there are other questions that scientists can examine in future research.The new study looked at dementia of all kinds. But future studies can investigate whether certain types of conditions, such as Alzheimer’s disease, have stronger ties to wildfire smoke than others.The research team is also “very curious” about the effects of multiple climate hazards working together, Casey added. If wildfires happen to coincide with power outages, for instance, that could restrict the ability of many households to use air filtration systems — potentially worsening their health risks.These kinds of questions are growing more urgent as the effects of climate change worsen. Recent research has found that about a quarter of all particulate matter pollution in the United States comes from wildfire smoke. And in parts of the Western U.S., smoke is responsible for as much as half.Reprinted from E&E News with permission from POLITICO, LLC. Copyright 2024. E&E News provides essential news for energy and environment professionals.

The particles that make up wildfire smoke may raise the risk of dementia even more than similar airborne pollutants from other sources

November 26, 2024

3 min read

Wildfire Smoke Linked to Increased Risk of Dementia

The particles that make up wildfire smoke may raise the risk of dementia even more than similar airborne pollutants from other sources

By Chelsea Harvey & E&E News

Firefighter with hose in heavy smoke. — A firefighter is surrounded by heavy smoke as he battles the advancing Silverado Fire fueled by Santa Ana winds at the 241 toll road and Portola Parkway on October 26, 2020 in Irvine, California.

Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

CLIMATEWIRE | Wildfire smoke can aggravate a variety of medical conditions, from asthma to heart disease.

Now, new research adds another worry to the mix. It can elevate the risk of dementia.

A study published Monday in the scientific journal JAMA Neurology, finds that long-term exposure to smoke concentrations is associated with a higher risk of dementia diagnosis over time. For every one microgram increase in wildfire pollution per cubic meter of air over the course of a three-year period, the odds of dementia diagnosis rise by about 18 percent, the study finds.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

That’s compared with each person’s baseline risk of dementia diagnosis, which remains relatively low among the general population. Still, the increased risks are large enough to pose a public health concern.

The study focuses on a form of air pollution known as particulate matter — tiny, inhalable particles, with diameters of 2.5 micrometers or smaller. This kind of air pollution can originate from a variety of sources, including automobiles, industrial sources and fires.

Previous studies already have suggested that particulate matter can increase the risk of dementia, among other health problems. The new research zooms in specifically on particles produced by wildfire smoke, which can have different chemical and physical properties than particles produced by other sources.

The study examined medical records from more than 1 million people in Southern California from 2008 to 2019, all part of the Kaiser Permanente Southern California medical care consortium. It also analyzed air quality records from the same time period to estimate long-term pollution concentrations, including particles stemming directly from wildfire smoke.

The study found that wildfire smoke increases the risk of dementia significantly more than particulate matter from other sources. There are several reasons that could be the case, the researchers say.

Wildfire smoke particles tend to have higher concentrations of molecules known for toxic or inflammatory properties. And wildfire smoke tends to spike at certain times of the year, compared with other kinds of air pollution — intermittently exposing communities to extremely high pollution concentrations, which may have greater effects on their health.

The study also found that certain demographics are at higher risk than others, including people with lower incomes and people of color, including Black, Hispanic and Asian communities.

Low-income communities often are at higher risk of exposure to air pollution, the researchers note. Lower quality housing in these communities may allow particulate matter to infiltrate homes more easily, and residents may have less access to air filtration systems.

Marginalized groups also may contend with more health challenges, in part because of systemic discrimination, compounding their risks of developing dementia later in life.

“We know that climate change impacts the most vulnerable communities first and worst and we appear to see a similar signal in our data,” said Joan Casey, an environmental epidemiologist and co-author of the new study, in an email to POLITICO'S E&E News.

Policymakers can take certain steps to protect these vulnerable communities, she added. They can make sure that all communications about public health are issued in multiple languages. And they can push for policies aimed at combating climate change, reducing other sources of air pollution and mitigating wildfires through strategies such as science-based controlled burns.

Meanwhile, there are other questions that scientists can examine in future research.

The new study looked at dementia of all kinds. But future studies can investigate whether certain types of conditions, such as Alzheimer’s disease, have stronger ties to wildfire smoke than others.

The research team is also “very curious” about the effects of multiple climate hazards working together, Casey added. If wildfires happen to coincide with power outages, for instance, that could restrict the ability of many households to use air filtration systems — potentially worsening their health risks.

These kinds of questions are growing more urgent as the effects of climate change worsen. Recent research has found that about a quarter of all particulate matter pollution in the United States comes from wildfire smoke. And in parts of the Western U.S., smoke is responsible for as much as half.

Read the full story here.

Photos courtesy of

Related News

Why Lung Cancer Is Increasing among Nonsmoking Women Under Age 65

Thoracic surgeon Jonathan Villena explains why early screening for lung cancer is critical—even for those without symptoms.

Rachel Feltman: For Scientific American’s Science Quickly, I’m Rachel Feltman.Lung cancer is the deadliest cancer among women in the United States, surpassing the mortality numbers of breast and ovarian cancer combined. And surprisingly, younger women who have never smoked are increasingly being diagnosed with the disease.Here to explain what could be driving this trend—and why early screening can make all the difference—is Johnathan Villena, a thoracic surgeon at NewYork-Presbyterian and Weill Cornell.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Thank you so much for joining us.Johnathan Villena: Thank you for having me.Feltman: So our viewers and listeners might be surprised to hear that lung cancer [deaths] in women now tops breast cancer, ovarian cancer combined. Can you tell us more about what’s going on there?Villena: Yeah, definitely. So in general lung cancer is the number-one cancer [killing]people in the U.S., both men and women. If you look at the American Cancer Society, around 226 new—226,000 new cases of lung cancer are projected to be diagnosed in 2025. Of those about 50 percent are cancer-related deaths, meaning [roughly] 120,000 people die every year from lung cancer. Now, what’s—the good news is that the incidence has actually been decreasing in the last few years.Feltman: Mm.Villena: If you look at the American Cancer Society’s statistics, in the last 10 years [ of data, which goes through 2021], the, the incidence of lung cancer has decreased in men around 3 percent per year. And it’s about half of that in women, meaning it’s decreasing [roughly] 1.5 percent per year. So one of the reasons that they think that this might be happening is that there was an uptick in smoking in women around the ’60s and ’70s, and that’s why we’re seeing a slight, you know, decrease in the incidence in men but not so much in the women.What’s more interesting and very surprising is the fact that when you look at younger people, meaning less than 65 years old—especially younger never-smoking people—there’s actually an increase of women in that subgroup. They’re overrepresented, and that’s something very surprising.Feltman: Does the research offer us any clues about what’s going on in this demographic of younger women?Villena: Yeah, so there’s been a lot of research. So, you know, in general—and something that people don’t know is that about 20 percent of lung cancers actually occur in people that have never smoked in their entire lives.Feltman: Mm.Villena: This is something that we don’t really understand why this happens to this one in five people, but there are some risk factors associated with it. Number one is exposure to radon, which is a natural gas that sometimes people are exposed to for a prolonged time. Number two is secondhand smoking ...Feltman: Mm.Villena: So they don’t smoke directly, but they live in a household where they smoke. And number three are kind of other environmental factors, things such as working in a specific, you know, manufacturing plant that deals with specific chemicals. And then lastly, the one that has had, actually, had a lot of research into it are genetic factors. There’s definitely a preponderance of certain mutations in somebody’s genes that can cause lung cancer, and that is overrepresented in women.Feltman: Do women face any unique challenges in getting diagnosed or treated when it comes to lung cancer?Villena: So, yes. First of all, you know, how do we treat or catch lung cancer? So the newest and, and latest way of catching this disease is actually through lung cancer screening.That’s something that’s relatively new; it’s only happened in the last 10 years. And that’s in certain demographics, meaning that if someone is over 50 years old and they have smoked more than one pack per day for 20 years, they meet the criteria for lung cancer screening, which is basically a radiograph or a CAT scan of their lungs. That’s the way that we pick up lung cancer.That’s the—almost the exact same thing that people have for breast cancer, such as mammography, or colonoscopy. So that’s before any symptoms come in. That’s really just to try to capture it when it’s in very nascent stages, right?Feltman: Mm-hmm.Villena: Where it’s very small or not symptomatic. And that’s the way we diagnose a, a lot of lung cancer.Now, that being said, there’s a couple of things. So first of all, [roughly] 60 to 70 percent of people, like, in general get mammographies.Feltman: Mm-hmm.Villena: [About] 60 to 70 percent of people get colonoscopies. Only 6 percent of people actually get lung cancer screening. So it’s dismally low.Feltman: Yeah.Villena: The reason being that sometimes people don’t know about it; it’s relatively new. Sometimes even doctors don’t know about it. There’s also a little bit of guilt involved, where people, you know, they think they did it to themselves by smoking ...Feltman: Hmm.Villena: So they don’t wanna go do it. The second thing is that, as you could imagine, this is only for high-risk individuals or people that have a history of smoking, all right? So it misses these never-smoking one in five patients. So that’s one of the things that we’re actively working on.Feltman: Yeah, how else does the, you know, the stigma associated with lung cancer because of its association with smoking, how does that impact people’s ability to get diagnosed and treated?Villena: I think there’s a lot of hesitancy between patients. There’s, you know, a recent study that showed that people are more—have more tendency to downplay their smoking history, meaning that if they quit, let’s say 10 years ago, you tell your doctor that you never smoked.Feltman: Mm.Villena: And that’s something very common. Or if you smoked, you know, one pack a day, maybe you say you smoked half a pack a day because you feel that guilt. So then you don’t give your doctor or your caretaker the full picture. And sometimes that prevents you from getting these tests, right? So there’s definitely that attitude.There’s also a bit of a fatalistic attitude, sort of like, “I did it to myself. I’d rather not know. You know, this is something that—you know, I made that choice, and if I get cancer, that’s my choice.” Right? So that’s, that’s also another attitude that we’re constantly trying to change in patients. You know, the treatment, once you capture it, is all the same, but really it’s about getting screening and it’s about finding the lung cancer.Feltman: So with smoking no longer necessarily being the driving factor, at least in this younger demographic, what kinds of risk factors should we be talking about more?Villena: So I think, you know—so smoking is always number one.Feltman: Sure.Villena: In the never-smoking people it’s either radon, secondhand smoking or environmental factors, and then a little bit of genetics plays, plays a part.Radon is something that people can test for in their homes. It’s something that people should read up on. So that’s number one: if you have exposure to that, to get rid of that.If you are in, in an environment, let’s say you work with chemicals that you think, you know, are astringent or have caused—causes you to have coughs or, you know, affects you in any sort of way, to kind of try to talk to your employer to work in a more ventilated setting.Really important with genetic factors is understanding your family history.Feltman: Mm.Villena: If you have a mother, a grandmother, a grandfather who died of cancer or you have a lot of cancer in your family, sometimes understanding that and knowing that from your, you know, from your family perspective will actually clue a doctor in to doing further tests, to looking into that further, ’cause that sometimes is passed down and you can have the same genes.Feltman: Are there any big research questions that scientists need to answer about lung cancer, specifically in young women?Villena: So, you know, there’s so much to look at, all right? So if we think about just the genetic aspect of it, there’s one specific gene called the EGFR gene—or it’s a mutation that’s found in lung cancer that in, if you look at all people with lung cancer, it’s found in about 15 percent ...Feltman: Mm-hmm.Villena: Of the population with lung cancer. Now, if you look at never-smoking Asian women that get lung cancer, it’s about 60 percent of them ...Feltman: Mm.Villena: Have that mutation. So the important thing about that EGFR mutation is there’s a specific drug for that mutation, all right?So there’s definitely a lot of genetic kind of information that we’re still actively researching. But the important thing about this genetic information is that there’s drugs targeted specifically for those mutations. So the more we know, the more we understand, the better.Feltman: So for folks who are hearing this and are surprised and, and maybe concerned what is your advice for how they should proceed, how they should look into their risk factors?Villena: You know, I think one of the, the, the major aspects of health in general is understanding your own health.Feltman: Mm.Villena: I think that younger people tend to delay care, tend to not see their doctors, and because, one, they’re busy, right, at their very busy moment in their lives. But second is that, you know, you don’t wanna deal with it, and you think that you will not get cancer, that you will not get this disease because you’re young and you’ve never smoked and you’ve never done anything bad.Feltman: Mm.Villena: But, you know, you have to be very aware of your body, so what are the kind of top four symptoms? So number one, let’s say you have a cough, and that cough lasts for longer than two weeks, right?Feltman: Mm-hmm.Villena: A normal cold, things like that will go away after a couple of weeks. But if it’s there for a couple of months, and I’ve definitely seen patients that tell me in retrospect, you know, “I’ve had this cough for three months,” right, and it should have been checked up sooner. So understanding yourself, understanding your body, not, you know, waiting for things, not procrastinating, which is very hard to do, but you should definitely see your doctor ...Feltman: Yeah.Villena: Regularly.Second is, like I said before, understanding your family, right, and what your genetic makeup is, right? Knowing your family history, understanding if your parents, grandparents had cancer, etcetera, or other chronic diseases.Feltman: Mm-hmm.Villena: And that’s, that’s basically the, the major aspects of it. It’s really being in tune with yourself.Feltman: So once a patient is actually diagnosed, what does treatment look like?Villena: So treatment for lung cancer, actually, is heavily dependent on the stage. There’s everything from stage 1, in which it’s localized to one portion of a lung, to stage 4, where it actually has gone to other parts of the body.Now, stage 1 disease, you basically need a simple surgery, where that lung nodule, or that lung cancer, is surgically removed, and typically you don’t need any other treatments. So stage 1 is what we look for. Stage 1 is the reason that lung cancer screening works because stage 1 doesn’t really have any symptoms ...Feltman: Mm.Villena: So when you find it that early patients do very well.Stage 4, once it’s left the lung, you are no longer a surgical candidate, unless in, you know, sometimes very specific cases, but for the most part you’re no longer a surgical candidate. And there you need systemic treatments.Feltman: And how long does the treatment tend to take for a stage 1 patient, if it’s just a surgical procedure?Villena: So if it’s just a surgical procedure, look, I do these surgeries all the time: the patient comes in; we do the surgery; the patients usually go home the next day.Feltman: Wow.Villena: And then we follow the patient and get CAT scans every six months for a long time to make sure nothing comes back or nothing new comes. So it’s pretty straightforward, and we do this all the time. We do these surgeries robotically now. Patients recover incredibly well, and they’re out, you know, doing—living their lives in a couple of weeks. So it’s really something very, very, very efficient.Feltman: Yeah, so huge incentive to get checked early.Villena: Mm-hmm.Feltman: Are there any advances in treatment, you know, any new treatments that doctors are excited about?Villena: Yeah, so there’s two major steps forward that have changed lung cancer treatment. Number one is something called targeted therapy.Feltman: Mm-hmm.Villena: So that means that there’s a drug that targets a specific mutation. So just how I was speaking about earlier about the EGFR mutation in young, never-smoking Asian women, there is a drug that targets that mutation that has really shown amazing results at all stages now.And the second one is actually immunotherapy, which won the Nobel Prize, which is this idea that you can use your own body’s immune system to kill the cancer cell. So cancer is very smart—what it does is it evades your immune system; it pretends that it’s part of your own body. And what this drug does is that it basically reawakens your immune system to recognize that cancer again and kill it. And we’ve seen amazing results, even in the stage 4 patients, where they are potentially cured of cancer, which, which we’ve never seen before.Feltman: What motivated you to get into this specialty?Villena: You know, I do have a family history of this in an uncle that passed away from lung cancer ...Feltman: Mm.Villena: And he was a heavy smoker. And, you know, I saw how, basically, decimated his, he was—[his] life [was], basically. He was a very vibrant guy, he was very active, and in six months he was gone, right?And I think, you know, once I started getting into, you know, medical school and understanding things, one of the major things that I really got into was research. And I see that if my uncle had been treated 20 years ago, he potentially could have been saved ...Feltman: Mm.Villena: Because of these advances in research. And right now we are right at the cusp where we are learning all these new things, and we actually have the tools to change how patients are treated, you know? And this—every year there’s a new treatment, which prior to that, there was no new treatment; i t was basically just chemo, and that’s it, all right? So I think that that really motivated me—something that I can actually take part in and actually change the course for a lot of people.Feltman: Well, thank you so much for coming on to chat with us today. This has been great.Villena: Thank you.Feltman: That’s all for today’s episode. We’ll be back on Friday to unpack the shocking story of a missing meteorite.Science Quickly is produced by me, Rachel Feltman, along with Fonda Mwangi and Jeff DelViscio. This episode was edited by Alex Sugiura and Kylie Murphy. Shayna Posses and Aaron Shattuck fact-check our show. Our theme music was composed by Dominic Smith. Subscribe to Scientific American for more up-to-date and in-depth science news.For Scientific American, this is Rachel Feltman. See you next time.

Chemicals

Health

Science

Newsom vetoes bill banning forever chemicals in cookware

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) vetoed a bill that would have banned the use of “forever chemicals” in cookware and other products in California. The bill became a source of controversy in the Golden State, with celebrity chefs among those who rallied against the cookware ban, while environmental and health activists have argued for it. It would have blocked the sales of cleaning products, dental floss, children's products, food packaging and ski wax that contained such chemicals starting in 2028 and cookware with them starting in 2030. While the bans would have only applied in California, the state’s sheer size gives it significant influence over what gets manufactured for sale across the nation. Newsom, in his veto message Monday, raised concerns about the availability of affordable cookware if the ban were to be implemented. “The broad range of products that would be impacted by this bill would result in a sizable and rapid shift in cooking products available to Californians,” the likely 2028 presidential hopeful wrote. “I appreciate efforts to protect the health and safety of consumers, and while this bill is well-intentioned, I am deeply concerned about the impact this bill would have on the availability of affordable options,” he added. However, proponents of the bill say the veto will result in more exposure to toxic chemicals. “By vetoing SB 682, Governor Newsom failed to protect Californians and our drinking water from toxic forever chemicals,” said Anna Reade, director of PFAS advocacy with the Natural Resources Defense Council, in a written statement. “It’s unfortunate that misinformation and greed by some in the cookware industry tanked this policy,”  Reade added. Forever chemicals are the nickname of a group of chemicals called PFAS that have been used in a wide variety of everyday products, including those that are nonstick or waterproof. Exposure to them has been linked to prostate, kidney and testicular cancer, as well as immune system and fertility issues. They can persist for decades in the environment instead of breaking down and have become pervasive in U.S. waterways, tap water and human beings. California has historically been a relatively aggressive state in terms of environmental and product regulations — for example, requiring that products containing certain chemicals contain warning labels. However, several other states have already banned PFAS in cookware and other products.

Chemicals

Activism

Health

Senators press EPA chemical chief nominee on speeding up TSCA

Douglas Troutman faced a divisive Senate hearing last week on his nomination to lead the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. Democrats voiced concerns about Troutman’s ties to industry while Republicans praised his experience as valuable for the agency role.

Chemicals

Pollution

Costa Rica Pesticide Use Harms Soil Life, UNA Study Finds

Costa Rica is one of the countries that uses the most agrochemicals, which has a series of negative repercussions in various areas. A recent study revealed that the intensive use of agrochemicals in the horticultural region of Zarcero causes physiological stress in earthworms, leading them to flee from contaminated soils. This demonstrates the vulnerability of these organisms to environmental alterations caused by such substances. The research was carried out by student Gabriel Brenes from the Regional Institute for Studies on Toxic Substances at the National University (Iret-UNA) as part of the requirements for a Master’s Degree in Tropical Ecotoxicology. Through both field and laboratory studies on earthworm species abundant in the area, the research determined a reduction in enzyme activity and defense mechanisms when the worms were exposed to soils containing agrochemicals or samples taken from them. After conducting behavioral tests, it was found that 90% of the worms avoided remaining in contaminated environments, moving instead to soils managed with organic practices or with lower agrochemical use. According to the study, this could have consequences for agricultural activity, as earthworms improve soil fertility, facilitate nutrient cycling and water movement, and contribute to the decomposition of organic matter. “The intensive use of agrochemicals induces physiological stress in earthworms and causes them to flee contaminated soils. This can have repercussions on the microfauna community and the ecosystem services that sustain agriculture,” explained Brenes. Evidence of reduced intestinal microbial diversity in soil worms exposed to agrochemicals indicates alterations that negatively affect soil health. “We found that the intestinal microbiome of earthworms functions as a sensitive bioindicator of soil health. A reduction in its diversity can affect not only the organisms themselves but also the ecological services they provide, such as fertility and nutrient recycling,” said the researcher. It also detected seasonal changes in microbial composition between the dry and rainy seasons on organic farms with good practices, demonstrating plasticity and adaptation to environmental conditions. For example, during the rainy season, there was an increase in the abundance of genera such as Lactobacillus and Acinetobacter, which were not dominant in the dry season. In contrast, worms from conventional soils showed no seasonal change in their intestinal communities, indicating a loss of ecological flexibility. The research showed that contamination is not limited to plots where agrochemicals are applied. Residues reach organic farms and nearby forest areas, confirming processes of drift and environmental transport. In Zarcero, a small area with intensive horticultural production, the presence of agrochemicals in untreated soils demonstrates that environmental exposure is widespread. The excessive use of agrochemicals in our country is aggravated by the fact that 93% of them are classified as highly hazardous. The post Costa Rica Pesticide Use Harms Soil Life, UNA Study Finds appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

Chemicals

Agriculture

Health

More And More People Suffer From 'Chemophobia' — And MAHA Is Partly To Blame

The fear tactic strikes a nerve with both conservatives and liberals alike. Here’s what you need to know.

If you’ve ever muttered to yourself, “I should really get the organic peaches,” or “I need to replace my old makeup with ‘clean’ beauty products” or “I really want to buy the “non-toxic’ laundry detergent,” you may have fallen into the chemophobia trap, an almost inescapable phobia that’s infiltrating lots of homes. Chemophobia is complicated, but, in short, it’s a distrust or fear of chemicals and appears in many of aspects of life from “chemical-free” soaps and “natural” deodorants to vaccine distrust and fear-mongering about seed oils.But, unlike most things, it plays on the emotions of both conservative MAGA voters and liberal MAGA opposers, even though actual chemophobia-based thoughts vary significantly in each group.“Much of this started on the left-leaning side of the political aisle as a result of misunderstanding the difference between legitimate chemical industrial incidents and just chemicals more broadly,” said Andrea Love, an immunologist, microbiologist and founder of Immunologic, a health and science communication organization.Appealing to the left, it was seen as counter-culture and opposed the “evil market forces,” said Timothy Caulfield, the co-founder of ScienceUpFirst, an organization that combats misinformation, and author of “The Certainty Illusion.”“But now we’re seeing it shift to the right, and I think it’s almost now entirely on the right, or at least the loudest voices ... are on the right,” Caulfield noted. These are voices like Casey Means, a wellness influencer and surgeon general nominee, and even Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the Health and Human Services secretary.On the right-leaning side, chemophobia appears as a distrust and demonization of things like studied vaccines and medications and the pushing of “natural” interventions, “when those have no regulatory oversight compared to regulated medicines,” Love noted.“On the left-leaning [side], this gets a lot of attention because it plays into this fear of toxic exposures, and this ‘organic purity’ narrative ... ‘you have to eat organic food, and you can’t have GMOs,’” Love said.No matter your political party, chemophobia has infiltrated people’s homes, diets and minds, while also infiltrating brand slogans, marketing campaigns and political messaging (ahem, Make America Healthy Again). Here’s what to know:Chemophobia says you should avoid chemicals, but that’s impossible — water is a chemical and you are made up of chemicals.“First of all, everything is chemicals,” said Love. “Your body is a sack of chemicals. You would not exist if it were not for all these different chemical compounds.”Chemophobia leads people to believe that synthetic, lab-made substances are inherently bad while “natural substances” — things found in nature — are inherently good, and that is just not true, Love said.The current obsession with “all-natural” beef tallow as a replacement for “manufactured” seed oils is a prime example of this.“Your body ... has no idea if it’s a synthetic chemical, meaning it was synthesized in a lab using chemical reactions, or if it exists somewhere out on the planet,” Love added.Your body doesn’t know the difference between getting vitamin C from a lime and getting vitamin C that’s made in a lab, she explained. Your body only cares about the chemical structure (which is the same in synthetic chemicals and natural chemicals) and the dosage you’re being exposed to, Love noted. “This irrational fear of chemicals, just by and large, is antithetical to life because chemistry and chemicals are why everything exists,” Love said.Everything that is made up of matter is a network of chemicals, she explained. That goes for your body, your pets, your car, your TV, your home and the food you eat.“Everything is just these structures of chemicals linked together into physical objects ... so, there’s zero reason to be afraid of chemicals broadly,” said Love.Chemophobia was born from the ‘appeal to nature fallacy’ and a desire to ‘get back to ancestral living.’Chemophobia was born from the “appeal to nature fallacy,” said Love, which is “the false belief that natural substances ... are inherently safe, beneficial or superior, whereas synthetic substances are inherently bad, dangerous, harmful or worse than a natural counterpart.” There is nothing legitimate about this belief, she added. But both chemophobia and the appeal to nature fallacy are central to pseudoscience, the anti-vaccine movement and the MAHA wellness industry, Love noted.At the core of chemophobia and appeal to nature fallacy is also a “romanticization of ancestral living, when, in reality, we lived very poorly, we died very young and often suffering and in pain,” Love said.“Going back to simpler times” are talking points for both MAHA and MAGA, which, of course, stands for “Make America Great Again,” a slogan that alludes to the past. And, RFK Jr. has repeatedly claimed America was healthier when his uncle, John F. Kennedy, was president.This is complicated, but not true; two out of three adults died of chronic disease and life expectancy was almost 10 years less than it is now, according to NPR.Chemophobia is designed to elicit negative emotions such as anxiety and fear.Chemophobia is incredibly effective because it evokes people’s negative emotions, said Love. And it’s hard for most people to separate emotions from facts.If someone on social media says that a certain ingredient is harming your kids, you’ll be scared and want to make lifestyle changes. If someone claims your makeup is bad for you, you’ll also be scared and want to make changes.“Take, for example, fructose, since it’s having a moment,” said Andrea Hardy, a dietitian and owner of Ignite Nutrition, who is referring to a viral social media video about the “harms” of fructose.“An influencer online might say ‘fructose is bad, the liver can’t handle it, we shouldn’t be eating any fructose. I’ve cut all fructose from my diet and I’m the healthiest I’ve ever been.’ Then a mom, wanting to do the best for her children says, ‘I need to cut out all fructose’ and not only removes the ultra-processed foods like sweetened beverages, but also says no to fruit in her household because of this misinformation,” Hardy said.This has lots of consequences, including a lack of nutrition in the home (from missing out on the fiber and vitamins from fruit) and the encouragement of disordered eating in kids, who, from this elimination of fructose, will learn the false idea that “fruit is bad” or “fructose is bad,” explained Hardy.Illustration: HuffPost; Photos: GettyChemophobia makes products that claim to be "natural" or "clean" feel superior, even when that isn't the case.Our brains want clear, black-and-white information. Vilifying one product while celebrating another achieves that.Between social media and the internet, we live in a “chaotic information environment,” according to Caulfield. There’s seemingly factual information coming at you from everywhere, and it can be hard to know what to trust.“The reality is, our brains want simple. They want black and white,” said Hardy. We make choices all day long, which makes categorizing things, like food, as “good or bad” appealing to our minds, Hardy said.And, everyone wants to make the “good” choice, Caulfield added. “We want to do what’s best for ourselves and for the environment and for our community and our family,” he said.As a result, we look for “clear signals of goodness,” or “short cuts to making the right decision,” added Caulfield. We turn not only to words like “good” or “bad,” but also “toxin-free,” “natural” and “clean,” he said.Seeing these words slapped on a jar of nut butter, on a shampoo bottle, or on sunscreen makes making the “right choice” easier, he added — “even though the evidence does not support what’s implied by those words, those ‘health halos,’” noted Caulfield.These words are an “oversimplification,” Hardy said. “People now leverage their social media presence to share those oversimplified nutrition messages, most of which are at best, wrong, at worst, harmful.”Chemophobia is really hard to escape. It’s even built into marketing campaigns and product names.If you’ve ever fallen into the chemophobia trap without knowing, you aren’t alone. It’s complicated and nuanced, and the science is, at times, messy.Moreover, chemophobia is the inspiration behind brand names and entire product categorizations; “clean beauty” is one huge example.Fears of chemicals are now marketing ploys. “You’re going to find products that claim that they’re ‘chemical-free,’ and that doesn’t exist,” Love said, referring to the fact that, once again, everything is made up of chemicals.Market forces take over and cling to the chemophobia buzz words of the moment, whether that’s “clean” “gluten-free” or “non-GMO,” Caulfield said.Now, we have Triscuits labeled with non-GMO marketing, he said. We also have entire product lines at stores like Sephora that are categorized as “clean.”“It creates this perception [of] ‘if that one’s chemical-free, then the alternative that isn’t labeled as such must be dangerous, must be bad,’” Love said.Once again, making the “good” choice easy.This isn’t to say there isn’t room for improvement in the health and food space.“I work in the public health space. I don’t know a single public health researcher, a single agricultural researcher, a single biomedical researcher who doesn’t want to make our food environment safer for everyone,” said Caulfield.Just because Caulfield speaks out against chemophobia doesn’t mean he doesn’t want to make our food and health environment healthier, he stressed.“I do think we should always be challenging both industry and government to do exactly that, but at the same time, we have to be realistic and understand the nature of the risks and the magnitude of risks at play,” he said.Both our food environment and agricultural practices could be safer, “but those moves should be based on what the science says, and not on slogans,” Caulfield said.Corporate greed and capitalism hinder these safety changes.“The huge irony here ... the answer to all of these chemophobia concerns ... it’s more government regulation. It’s more robust, science-informed regulation. And in this political environment, that ain’t going to happen, That just simply isn’t going to happen, as we’ve already seen,” Caulfield said.The Trump administration wants to repeal environmental protections that help fight climate change (and the air we breathe has huge health implications) and has cut funding to departments that are in charge of food safety, which could jeopardize the items you buy at the grocery store.“So, it all just becomes slogans and wellness nonsense,” along with the peddling of unregulated, unproven supplements (that are basically just untested chemicals), Caulfield added.And, many of the people who claim to be so concerned about chemicals then profit from the sale of unregulated supplements, Caulfield said.Jeff Greenberg via Getty ImagesThe hyper-focus on things like food dyes and seed oils actually distracts from the true health — and healthy equity — issues in this country.Focusing on one ‘bad’ ingredient or so-called ‘natural’ alternatives won’t actually make you healthier.This fear of chemicals will have an enormous impact and is “something we won’t even realize and see the effects of for years to come,” Hardy said.“If we want to improve public health, focusing on a single ingredient in food or swapping seed oils for beef tallow isn’t the answer to our public health problems, it’s a distraction,” Hardy said.Food dyes, seed oils, “non-clean” beauty, whatever the item may be, become a common enemy, allowing folks to ignore the fact that this isn’t actually a problem that’s central to the country’s health outcomes, Love added.RFK Jr. has claimed that “Americans are getting sicker” and research does show that America has worse health outcomes while spending more on health care than other Western countries, but it’s too simple (and flat-out wrong) to blame any one makeup chemical or item in your pantry.“Instead of critically assessing and saying, ’Hey, we do have some health challenges, but what are the underlying factors to that? Maybe it’s housing inequity and lack of national health care and all of these societal, structural issues, and it’s not these singular food ingredients,” Love said.“These conversations distract us from the real things that we can do to make ourselves and our communities healthier, and I think that’s one of the biggest problems with MAHA,” said Caulfield.“No one’s a huge food dye fan. I’m not going to go to the mat for food dye [but] ... all these are distractions from the things that really matter to make us, to make our communities healthier — equity, justice, access to health care, education, gun laws — these are the things that, on a population level, are really going to make a difference,” Caulfield said.Whether someone has conservative or liberal views that fuel their chemophobia, the fear of chemicals is dangerous. And, it’s, sadly, more prevalent than ever, Caulfield said.It’s causing people to say no to necessary vaccines, not wear sunblock out of fears of “toxins,” avoid fruit because of fructose and more.YourSupportMakes The StoryYour SupportFuelsOur MissionYour SupportFuelsOur MissionJoin Those Who Make It PossibleHuffPost stands apart because we report for the people, not the powerful. Our journalism is fearless, inclusive, and unfiltered. Join the membership program and help strengthen news that puts people first.We remain committed to providing you with the unflinching, fact-based journalism everyone deserves.Thank you again for your support along the way. We’re truly grateful for readers like you! Your initial support helped get us here and bolstered our newsroom, which kept us strong during uncertain times. Now as we continue, we need your help more than ever. We hope you will join us once again.We remain committed to providing you with the unflinching, fact-based journalism everyone deserves.Thank you again for your support along the way. We’re truly grateful for readers like you! Your initial support helped get us here and bolstered our newsroom, which kept us strong during uncertain times. Now as we continue, we need your help more than ever. We hope you will join us once again.Support HuffPostAlready contributed? Log in to hide these messages.“This is going to kill people ... this is really serious stuff, and it’s an incredible time in human history in the worst possible way,” Caulfield said.

Chemicals

Climate

Education

Suggested Viewing

We Trees

Ever wonder what trees think of us now that we have created a climate disaster? This 2-minute film answers that question. As Bill McKibben recently tweeted about the film, “Who speaks for trees? In this short and elegant video, the trees themselves.” It has been screened at Green Fest (Serbia), The Colorado Environmental Film Festival, The Wildlife Conservation Film Festival and Winner of Merit at the Nature Without Borders Film Festival.

Forests

Chemicals

Climate

Sprayed

An exploration of what happens when whole communities get exposed to toxins: Naled sprayed on Miami residents to fight Zika virus, Agent Orange sprayed on the Vietcong, and release of GMO mosquitoes in Brazil with pyriproxyfen added to drinking water to fight dengue. What are the results for nature and humanity? We meet Agent Orange survivors at Vietnamese detoxification and rehabilitation centers, parents of babies born with microcephaly from Zika virus, and Florida residents dealing with efforts to kill mosquitoes carrying Zika virus. Perspectives of doctors, scientists, and politicians are balanced with voices of ordinary citizens and victims to explore concerns about the potential impact on current and future generations.

Chemicals

Health

Science

Bag It

Bag It examines our society’s use and abuse of plastic. The theme of the film focuses on plastic as it relates to our society’s throw away mentality, our culture of convenience, and our over consumption of throwaway products and packaging—things that we use one time and then, without another thought, we throw them away. Bag It offers a candid view of the disturbing realities of our culture. And, it suggests concrete solutions to our plastic addiction. The film will raise public awareness on the many issues related to plastic and inspire change, both on the individual level and on the public policy level.

Chemicals

Waste

Culture

The Story of Plastic

A searing expose uncovering the ugly truth behind the global plastic pollution crisis. Striking footage shot over three continents illustrates the ongoing catastrophe: fields full of garbage, veritable mountains of trash; rivers and seas clogged with waste; and skies choked with poisons from plastic production and recycling processes with no end in sight. Original animations, interviews with experts and activists, and never-before-filmed scenes reveal the disastrous consequences of the plastic flood around the world – and the global movement rising up in response.

Chemicals

Pollution

Crisis

Lead in the Land

Lead in the Land is a documentary focusing on the harsh reality and far-reaching effects of lead poisoning, an invisible and insidious threat afflicting thousands of children in the United States. The film sheds light on the circumstances around lead poisoning, examining its causes, effects and potential solutions.

Chemicals

Social Justice

Health

Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

GoGreenNation news

Wildfire Smoke Linked to Increased Risk of Dementia

On supporting science journalism

Related News

Why Lung Cancer Is Increasing among Nonsmoking Women Under Age 65

Newsom vetoes bill banning forever chemicals in cookware

Senators press EPA chemical chief nominee on speeding up TSCA

Costa Rica Pesticide Use Harms Soil Life, UNA Study Finds

More And More People Suffer From 'Chemophobia' — And MAHA Is Partly To Blame

Suggested Viewing

We Trees

Sprayed

Bag It

The Story of Plastic

Lead in the Land

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

Wildfire Smoke Linked to Increased Risk of Dementia

On supporting science journalism

Related News

Why Lung Cancer Is Increasing among Nonsmoking Women Under Age 65

Newsom vetoes bill banning forever chemicals in cookware

Senators press EPA chemical chief nominee on speeding up TSCA

Costa Rica Pesticide Use Harms Soil Life, UNA Study Finds

More And More People Suffer From 'Chemophobia' — And MAHA Is Partly To Blame

Suggested Viewing

We Trees

Sprayed

Bag It

The Story of Plastic

Lead in the Land

Join us to forgea sustainable future

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Join us to forge
a sustainable future