Memorandum submitted by the Soil Association
(R 10)
SUMMARY
A fundamental change in the basis of human nutrition
occurred when synthetic fertilisers and pesticides replaced the
natural (organic) mode of crop nutrition.
Despite its importance, there has never been
a review of the consequences of this and other aspects of the
intensification of agriculture on human health. The emergence
of nvCJD is one of many serious developments that need studying
(1).
While improvements have occurred, particularly
in disease treatment, there has been a general deterioration in
health, including increases in: food poisoning, allergies, food
intolerances, cancers, infertility, sexual development disorders,
respiratory sensitivity, antibiotic resistant bacteria and mental
health problems.
Possible links between intensive farming and
human health include:
pesticides and cancers, infertility,
early puberty, degenerative disease, lowered immunity and mental
health (4A);
agro-chemicals and micro-nutrients,
disease resistance and cancer (4A);
intensive housing and food poisoning
and antibiotic resistant bacteria (4B);
concentrate feed and E.coli, cancer,
diabetes, and heart disease (4B);
OPs and copper/manganese imbalance
and BSE/nvCJD (4B);
large abattoirs and food poisoning
and antibiotic resistant bacteria (4B);
low genetic diversity and disease
epidemics (4C); and
excessive hygiene and asthma, allergies
and lowered immunity (4C).
The Soil Association believes that there is
a direct link between food production methods and human health,
and that this is a major cause of current health problems and
the cost of the NHS. If correct, the implications are enormous
(5).
For example, if intensive farming practices
account for a fifth of the current NHS budget, £12 billion
could be saved annually were these practices avoided. This is
more than is needed to make all of UK agriculture organic (5).
We therefore urge the Select Committee to propose
(7):
a programme of research into the
health effects of intensive farming;
a quantification of the health costs
of (i) intensive and (ii) organic farming;
"joined-up" agriculture
and health policies;
a refocus of health and agricultural
policies on "health" and not "hygiene"; and
investment in organic food and farming.
GOVERNMENT RESEARCH INTO TSES AND INTENSIVE
FARMING
1. INTRODUCTION
The Soil Association believes that there is
a direct link between the method of food production and health.
One of our main aims as an organisation is to create a body of
informed opinion on this subject. The emergence of BSE and nvCJD
have had dramatic consequences. As well as serious problems for
much of British agriculture, major cost to the Exchequer, and
its impact on human health, there has now been a critical examination
of the Government's management of the subject through the Phillips
report. However, for us, nvCJD is just one of a large number of
important human health problems that have arisen with the introduction
of intensive farming methods and that urgently need studying.
We therefore greatly welcome this Committee enquiry into Government
research, in particular its wish to look into other aspects of
intensive agriculture that may affect health. This paper briefly
sets out the issues, our specific comments on TSEs are provided
in section 4.11.
A seismic change took place when agriculture
moved from traditional farming methods to modern, intensified
farming. Over 50 years ago, we unknowingly altered the fundamental
basis of our nutrition to one that was and remains an untested
alternative. When synthetic fertilisers and pesticides were introduced
into agriculture, we replaced the natural mode of crop nutrition
with a very different one. That this fundamental change was taking
place, however, was not generally realised and as a result the
consequences for human health were never publicly identified or
examined. Other major changes brought further implications for
health.
We believe this work is long over due and wish
to draw the Committee's attention to many of the key areas where
research should be focussed. As health is important for every
individual as well as for society and the economy as a whole,
it is essential that all links between food production methods
and health are properly understood. For 25 years after our establishment
in 1946, the Soil Association undertook research in this area.
The scale of the task, however, was beyond our resources, and
should rightly fall to government. The following section gives
the background to the development of our views and of organic
farming as, in our opinion, a safer, healthier alternative. The
rest of the paper discusses the various links that we have identified
between intensive farming and health.
2. THE EARLY
RESEARCH OF
THE ORGANIC
MOVEMENT
The conclusions of the organic movement were
reached through research and observation. It was from these findings,
which remain of great relevance today, that the principles and
practices of organic farming were developed. Paramount among the
conclusions is the idea that health in crops, animals and humans
depends on the use or non-use of soil organic matter and soil
life as the basis for growing crops.
Medical Observation
In 1939, over a quarter of a century after the
National Insurance Act, a committee of Cheshire GPs considered
in a paper ("Medical Testament") how the health service
was faring in its two objectives, "the prevention and cure
of sickness". They were confident of the second, evidenced
by a fall in fatality, but not of the first, the prevention of
disease. They concluded that there were still high levels of sickness
and, moreover, that this seemed to have resulted from a life-time
of faulty nutrition.
Rat studies
Observations in India, by a Sir Robert McCarrison,
led to the same conclusion: he found great variation in physique
among the numerous Indian races, but noted that when all factors
were equal (climate, customs, endemic diseases etc) except that
the diet differed, the physique of the people was also different.
He went on to conduct several studies on rats, and found that
when different groups were fed the diet of different Indian races,
the physique and health of the rats directly mirrored the physique
of the people on each diet. Those rats fed the diet of the people
with the best physique had no case of illness during two years
(equivalent to 50 years of human life). Furthermore, when rats
were fed a typical UK diet, they ended up having exactly the same
diseases found commonly at the time and also had very poor social
interactions (the rats became very aggressive), unlike those fed
the best Indian diet. These experiments suggested that good food
could well be the most important factor for ensuring good health.
Plant and animal nutrition: naturally organic
Other research exposed a similar relationship
between plant and animal nutrition and health. Moreover, this
led to the identification of the source of the health giving properties
in food. It was found that in nature, plants are nourished by
the nutrients supplied to them by the soil life and the soil life
derives its nutrients from organic matter in the soil. This was
quite different from the mode of nutrition being introduced at
the time with artificial inorganic fertilisers, where plants receive
their nutrients directly from the soil from minerals in solution
(mainly N, P, K).
Startling discoveries were made by the academic,
Sir Albert Howard, also in India. In his work over a period of
21 years and using large areas of land, he found that if the soil
organic matter was replenished through the regular addition of
composts made from vegetable and animal wastes, then the resulting
crops were practically free of disease. They appeared to have
a natural immunity to disease and, furthermore, this resistance
was passed to livestock when fed on these crops. The animals were
found to be resistant to infective, parasitic and degenerative
diseases. Remarkably, these animals did not even pick up diseases
when brought into close contact with infected animals (eg with
foot and mouth). Separately, observations of plant roots found
that mycorrhiza (special fungal networks in the soil) were naturally
associated with wild plants and crops of all habitats and climates
(including cereals, grasses, potatoes, leguminous crops etc).
In agriculture, it was found that the healthiest crops had the
most extensive mycorrhizal networks, while in unhealthy plants,
mycorrhiza were minimal or even absent.
Work in the UK with pine seedlings established
a link between the presence of mycorrhiza and the beneficial effect
of composts. Experiments showed that the compost was not nourishing
the plant directly but nourishing the mycorrhiza and it was the
mycorrhiza which were nourishing the plant. Other experiments
showed that it was not simply the nutrients in the composts which
were needed, since a supply of the equivalent amount of inorganic
nutrients as contained in the compost resulted in noticeably less
growth.
It is now known that mycorrhiza naturally form
close physical associations with plant roots and in one important
group the fungal hyphae actually penetrate deeply into plant root
cells. In this way and through the actions of other microbiological
soil life, plants are naturally supplied with a whole range of
nutrients that would be otherwise too distant, insufficiently
supplied or physically unavailable for uptake by the plant roots
alone. It is also known now that the use of inorganic fertilisers
and pesticides actually inhibits the microbiological life in the
soil. The logical conclusion is that this therefore limits the
organic nutrient supply route and thus introduces questions over
whether the same range and quantity of nutrients and other health
promoting substances are being supplied to crops (and therefore
to us).
For the organic movement, the ultimate conclusion
of these observations is that good health in crops, animals and
humans depends on soil organic matter providing the basis for
crop nutrition via soil life. We note, however, these experiments
have not been properly replicated or developed in modern times.
3. DEVELOPMENTS
IN PUBLIC
HEALTH
Since the initial introduction of pesticides
and fertilisers, agriculture has become increasingly intensive,
especially for crop production and dairy, pig and poultry rearing.
In the UK, the intensification of livestock production greatly
increased after 1953 when parliament permitted the use of growth
promoting antibiotics. It was not realised at the time that these
would also have a disease suppressant effect and thus enable the
introduction of more intensive livestock housing, otherwise impossible
from a disease control point of view. Intensive housing for dairy,
pigs and poultry with the associated routine use of antibiotics
and other veterinary drugs is now normal in the UK. For crop production,
the greatest period of intensification was during the 1970s, when
fungicides were also introduced and insecticides were more widely
used. Both of these developments followed the move away from mixed
farming systems which was prompted by the increased cereal prices
and other aspects of the Common Agricultural Policy.
It is often claimed that these developments
cannot have harmed our health since we now live longer, are taller,
are less likely to die young of infectious disease or die of malnutrition.
However, this is a simplified picture.
Changes in health
There have actually been many negative health
trends since agriculture intensified:
Life expectancy: though
average life expectancy has increased (from 49 in 1900 to c 75
now for women and a little less for men), this hides the fact
that actually in the last few decades this has resulted from reducing
the number of deaths occurring in the early part of life, rather
than extending the age at which we die once middle aged. Life
expectancy at 50 has remained roughly the same for some time,
and we understand that it is even decreasing in the Netherlands
(one of the world's highest users of pesticides);
Food borne diseases: food
poisoning cases have risen sharply since the 1970s; from an average
of 8,000 cases in the '70s to 94,000 cases in 1997 (according
to the Public Health Laboratory Service, PHLS), ie a 10 fold increase
in reported cases in 30 years. Furthermore, a Food Standards Agency
survey just found that there were actually five million incidents
of food poisoning in 2000. Moreover, new and more virulent strains
have emerged. E.coli 0157 and Salmonella typhymurium DT04, for
example, have both developed since 1980;
Cancers: the lifetime
risk of developing cancer across all ages has increased from one
in four to one in three. There has been a particularly large increase
in those cancers related to reproduction such as testicular and
breast cancers. The chance of getting breast cancer has risen
from one in 20 in the 1960s to one in 11 now (and in parts of
the US, it is now one in seven) (Dr Vyvyan Howard, University
of Liverpool). Indeed, the UK now has the highest death rates
of breast cancer in the world. There has also been a ten fold
increase in childhood leukaemia over the last 80 years (Professor
Mel Greaves, Institute of Cancer Research);
Fertility and sexual development:
of probably the greatest concern must be the trend in falling
fertility. Sperm counts in Europe have now fallen by a half since
World War II; in the US, where records started earlier the fall
is about two thirds. Of almost as much concern is the falling
age of puberty, happening in both Europe and the US. There also
appear to be changes in the pattern of human sexual orientation.
Although we do not know how much this is simply due to more openness
of this subject, we do know that sexual changes are well documented
in fish and linked to chemicals in water;
Allergies and food intolerances:
cases of allergies and food intolerances have increased almost
epidemically in recent years;
Asthma and respiratory sensitivity:
incidence of these has increased since the 1970s. Adult asthma
has more than doubled among non smokers, from about 3 per cent
in 1972 to about 8 per cent now;
Antibiotic resistant bacteria:
finally, there has been a growth in the emergence of antibiotic
resistance bacterial infections, which threatens a large increase
in fatalities from once minor illnesses or from infection in previously
routine medical operations. Food poisoning is not only increasing,
but becoming more antibiotic resistant. For example, the most
serious strains of salmonella typhymurium have increased from
only 5 per cent resistance to key antibiotics to 95 per cent resistance
today, and many strains of this bacteria are resistant to at least
five antibiotics (PHLS). This development requires urgent attention
as no new class of antibiotic is close to commercialisation.
In addition, while we do not have detailed information
on changes in incidence in the following areas, we are concerned
that apparently high levels may also reflect links to food production
methods:
diseases of the immune system;
mental health: we understand that
mental health problems have increased greatly and are still increasing;
degenerative disease: such as Alzheimer's
and Parkinson's diseases;
TB and Crohn's disease: there has
been a small rise in cattle forms of TB in humans; Crohn's disease
is currently estimated to affect about 80,000 people in the UK;
and
Analysing and explaining these changes
Firstly, while the death rate of the British
population has been brought down, it seems clear that there has
meanwhile been a serious degeneration in the basic health of the
population, ie our ability to avoid contracting the above health
problems. Secondly, when considering life expectancy and that
one would expect it to have fallen if the intensification of agriculture
has a negative effect on health, it must be remembered that those
who are old now and therefore defining current life expectancy,
were actually brought up before agriculture became intensive.
(i) Explanations for positive changes
A brief consideration suggests three obvious
reasons why certain aspects of health, including the death rate
here, have improved, or not been worse:
medical advances: modern medicine
has clearly brought about a revolution in our ability to treat
illness, as well as, to a limited extent, improved our ability
to avoid illness (vaccines against infectious diseases);
cold chain: the introduction of the
cold chain for food handling and distribution after the farm must
have greatly reduced the opportunities for bacteria in food to
reproduce (making the upward trend in food poisoning even more
striking); and
access to food: it seems clear that
access to food among the poorer sections of society has increased,
as evidenced by the great fall in the percentage of household
income being spent on food (from around a third in the 1940s to
c. 10 per cent today). This will have reduced cases of malnutrition.
(ii) Explanations for negative changes
There would appear to be at least four main
reasons why the declines in health outlined have occurred:
air pollution: we are aware that
there are a number of pollutants in the air, especially in urban
areas;
lifestyle: people take less exercise,
eat more "junk" food and it is generally felt that modern
life is much more stressful in many ways that previously;
agricultural intensification: in
terms of general timing, there is a good match between intensification
and many of the negative health trends. Although people have access
to a greater variety of food, it is our view that the quality
of food has seriously deteriorated with intensification, through
the introduction of various contaminants in food and a reduction
in micronutrients; and
food processing: in our view, the
inappropriate treatment of food post farm gate, including a reduction
in nutrients and the addition of various artificial additives,
has been a major negative development in food quality and health.
Many additives have been linked to health problems, especially
mental health problems.
Although no-one knows the exact contribution
of each of the above to today's health problems, based on the
early findings of the organic movement, independent advice and
our own experience and judgement, we are strongly of the view
that agricultural intensification and food processing are major
contributors to most or possibly even all of the above health
problems. That we are all intimately exposed to the result of
these two factors is evidenced by the fact that people today have
between 300 and 500 synthetic chemicals in their bodies. Even
if the first two reasons, air pollution and lifestyle, are also
major contributors, and we believe they are, we think it is highly
likely that a serious deterioration in food quality has reduced
the disease resistance of the modern human body and made it vulnerable
to other environmental factors. By "quality", we mean
(i) the presence of chemical residues that may negatively affect
health and also burden the immune system, as well as (ii) fewer
micronutrients such as trace elements and other substances that
play a role in human health (ie we are not referring to cosmetic
quality or macronutrients).
This view is based on all the information we
have available to us. If this conclusion is correct, a new approach
to public health would be needed if we are to prevent, rather
than simply react to the serious public health problems of the
future. We are very well aware, however, that there is still only
limited scientific evidence in support of this, mainly because
most of this work has not been undertaken. In the next section
we outline a number of likely links between intensive farming
and health. We present all of these as candidates for urgent research.
Meanwhile at a policy level, for something as
important as human health, the organic movement believes the precautionary
principle should be applied. On this basis and the movement's
knowledge of the natural (organic) mode of plant nutrition, organic
food and farming was developed. Organic standards address both
agriculture production and food processing, through prohibition
or restriction of those practices, treatments and additives that
we believe are likely to compromise health, and through the prescription
of positive, alternative practices.
4. LINKS BETWEEN
INTENSIVE AGRICULTURAL
PRACTICES AND
HEALTH
(A) CROP
PRODUCTION
1. Pesticides residues and cancers,
infertility, early puberty, degenerative disease, reduction in
immunity and others: About 450 synthetic chemicals are licenced
for use in agriculture in the UK. Between 1995 and 1999, annual
monitoring has found that between 25 per cent and 31 per cent
of foods contain detectable residues, with 1 per cent to 1.6 per
cent of these in excess of the advised maximum level (MRL). We
understand that, unlike natural toxins, the body cannot break
down synthetic compounds; hence, the 300-500 synthetic chemicals
found in the body of the average person today. These compounds
have been extensively tested and are supposedly safe but, while
the immediate and other effects in controlled situations are known,
the long term and cumulative effects have never been tested on
humans and hardly anything is known about the "cocktail"
effectthe effect of more than one such compound acting
together.
Up to 80 pesticides are considered potentially
endocrine disrupting (EDCs), affecting the hormone system (five
of the 12 most commonly found pesticide residues are EDCs). These
have been linked with decreasing male fertility, breast cancer
(in Lincolnshire, for example, where lindane was extensively used,
breast cancer was 40 per cent higher than the national average),
foetal abnormalities and early puberty in females.
The cocktail effect refers to effects resulting
from combinations of pesticides, that do not result from either
of them individually. It appears to be a real and important phenomenon.
For example: experiments show that while either alone was benign,
the combination of two widely used pesticides (Maneb and Paraquat)
caused the exact pattern of brain damage found in Parkinson's
disease (Study by the University of Rochester School of Medicine
and Dentistry; Journal of Neuroscience, 15 December 2000). However,
hardly anything is known about this subject as there is little
way of identifying the toxicology of mixtures. Testing for all
possible effects of all possible pairs of the hundred's of licensed
pesticides would require many thousands of studies; testing for
the effects of three, four and all larger combinations would be
completely impossible. Considering the total number of combinations,
even if only a small percentage, 1 per cent say, have major health
implications, this amounts to a very large number of health effects
that are not being recognised.
We are also concerned that the very large number
of food contaminants entering the body is a major burden on the
human immune system. This alone may have significantly reduced
the body's ability to fight disease and resist environmental stresses.
2. Exposure to pesticides and fertility
and mental health: Direct exposure is also a concern. Dutch
research has found significantly lower rates of fertility among
people occupationally exposed to pesticides (E Tielemans et
al, "Pesticide exposure and decreased fertilisation rates
in vitro", The Lancet, 354: 7 August 1999). In contrast
a Danish study found a test group of organic farmers had sperm
counts 50 per cent higher than the national average. As far as
mental health is concerned, a study of young children in an area
of Mexico, for example, found worryingly lower mental capabilities
between those in more intensively farmed areas and those in less
intensively farmed areas.
3. Agro-chemicals and supplies of minerals
and other micro nutrients: As the presence of inorganic fertilisers
and pesticides suppresses microbiological life in the soil, it
can be assumed that the normal supply of nutrients via soil life
to plants is also limited. It therefore needs to be asked whether
the new nutrient route is supplying the same quantities and range
of nutrients as the natural route. Nutrition in non-organic farming
is mainly based on the regular addition of N, P, K with other
minerals added when it is considered there are shortages for the
plant. Uptake by the plants is through simple diffusion, as opposed
to the direct supply into the roots via soil mycorrhiza that occurs
in the organic route. If, in non-organic farming, lower quantities
of all the minerals and trace elements that we need are being
taken up by the crops, a reduction in the level of such nutrients
would follow in our diet. This problem would appear to be exacerbated
by the emphasis in intensive farming on using the three main fertilisers
to push plant growth, presumably causing as a side effect the
drain of other minerals and trace elements from the soil's reserves.
This theory seems to have been very much borne
out: a Government study of mineral levels on fruit and vegetables
found reductions in six minerals of between 15 per cent and 76
per cent between 1940 and 1991 (The Composition of Foods,
MAFF and the Royal Society of Chemistry, 1991). Research is needed
to examine such trends and consider what exactly the implications
are for human health.
4. Agro-chemicals and disease resistance
and cancer: We also believe that intensive farming is limiting
the supply of natural products that counter disease in humans.
Plants naturally produce "secondary metabolites" to
regulate cell growth and hormones and also counter disease, and
these compounds have been found to have positive health effects
in humans. It appears they eliminate cancer causing free radicals
and are more powerful than anti-oxidants, such as vitamins C,
E and selenium. For example, studies of broadleaf vegetables such
as lettuce, have apparently shown that when they are attacked
by viruses, they produce compounds called salicylates. These are
related to asprin and are thought to be natural anti-cancer agents.
Professor Robin Phillips, a leading cancer expert at St Mark's
Hospital, Middlesex, has suggested that the production of vegetables
in controlled conditionsas they generally are now for supermarketsmay
prevent them being exposed to natural infections and thus from
producing a high level of these substances. Research from Denmark
and Germany has shown that non-organic food has lower levels of
secondary metabolites than organic foods and a link has been found
between the use of artificial fertilisers, especially nitrogen,
and lower levels of secondary metabolites in plants.
In addition to promoting nutrient uptake, soil
microbiological life has been found to play a major role in nature
in promoting plant disease resistance. For example, it seems that
populations of benign microbial out-compete pathogens and their
presence sensitises the plant's immune system (similar to vaccination).
(B) ANIMAL PRODUCTION
Intensive housing and food poisoning:
In our view, intensive livestock housing provides the ideal breeding
ground for the spread of infection and development of new strains
of food poisoning bacteria, because of the close proximity as
well as the elevated stress levels of the animals. This is, itself,
a major health problem.
But, to control the inevitable high levels of
animal disease in intensive systems, the routine use of antibiotics
to suppress disease is obligatory, and this has brought additional
problems for food poisoning. Many of the antibiotics being used
initially for growth promotion have been found to encourage the
spread of salmonella. It seems that while salmonella bacteria
are of a type called "gram negative", these antibiotics
killed "gram positive" bacteria and were therefore killing
off the bacteria that were competing with the salmonella bacteria,
encouraging their spread. This was revealed by detailed UK research
in the '70s and '80s and was shown to have been the cause of the
increase in salmonella in poultry. This appears to have been confirmed
by the fact that since the ban on two antibiotics in 1997 and
1999 (avoparcin and virginiamycin) levels of salmonella have now
fallen. An MLC survey published last year, found a carriage rate
of 23 per cent of salmonella in pigs, and 94.5 per cent for camplylobacter
in pigs.
5. Intensive housing and antibiotic
resistance: The use of antibiotics in agriculture has turned
out to have been a major contributor to the rise in antibiotic
resistance: the World Health Organisation (WHO) has now accepted
that antibiotic resistance in salmonella, campylobacter and E.coli
has come pre-dominantly from farming use, as has resistance in
enterococci, a serious hospital superbug (VRE).
In the UK, apart from on the minority of extensive,
outdoor farms, antibiotics are still used routinely for poultry,
pigs, dairy cattle and some intensively reared beef cattle. Despite
the ban on seven out of 10 "growth promoting" antibiotics,
and the modest reduction in the use of some others in recent years,
the overall problems arising from the use of antibiotics in livestock
production are still serious and total use per animal is considerably
higher than it was 30 years ago. This is because antibiotics are
still required for disease suppression in intensive systems. In
addition, intensive systems further increase antibiotic use by
the need to treat the whole unit when some animals fall ill.
6. Stress and disease: A link between
stress and greater susceptibility to disease is generally accepted.
Intensive rearing systems, both through the restricted physical
conditions but also through pressure for high levels of productivity,
mean animals are much more physically and mentally stressed than
they would be naturally. For example, the average cow's yield
has gone up from 3,000 litres per year 20 years ago to 5,800 litres
today, with many cattle achieving over 10,000 litres. Piglets,
which were traditionally weaned at seven to eight weeks old, are
now being weaned at three weeks. It would seem logical that this
aspect of intensive farming has significantly increased the level
of disease in animals and thus food borne disease in humans.
7. Concentrate feed and E.coli food
poisoning, cancer, diabetes, heart disease and weight control:
Dairy cattle, which once fed mainly on grass, are now typically
fed a high proportion of concentrates (soya and maize grain; maize,
for example commonly forms 30-50 per cent of the diet of dairy
cattle). Concentrate feed introduces at least two specific health
problems. The most important appears to be the effect on E.coli.
It has been found that the level of virulent strains of E.coli
0157:H7 increase dramatically in the guts of cattle which are
grain fed. Research at the University of Cornell found that grain
fed animals generate over 100 times as much of the E.coli as hay
fed animals. (J. Couzin, 1998, "Cattle diet linked to bacterial
growth", Science, 281: 1578-1579).
Conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) is a natural
fatty acid found in dairy products, beef, and poultry. It is thought
to help prevent cancer, enhance immunity, reduce the effects of
diabetes, reduce heart disease and perhaps also help weight control.
Though once common in the British diet, agricultural changes mean
levels have fallen. CLA in milk, for example, depends on a high
level of forage (grass, hay or silage) in a cow's diet. Animals
fed concentrates, however, have been found to result in only 20
per cent of the CLA of those fed forage (Michel Pariza, University
of Wisconsin, report from USDA, published New Scientist,
22 April 2000).
8. Manure waste and disease: Pathogenic
organisms can be transmitted through the application of untreated
or inadequately treated animal manures on fields. Properly treated,
manures are an effective and safe fertiliser. However, in intensive
farming systems, because the main source of nutrients are inorganic
fertilisers, manure is not always seen as a valuable resource
but instead treated as a waste. There is therefore not the same
attention given to composting as there is, for example, in an
organic system where manure is one of the basic resources of the
system and there are standards for composting.
9. Feed additive residues and heart
attacks: We are concerned over the extent to which a number
of relatively toxic feed additives being routinely included in
poultry rations to control coccidiosis and other parasitic infections
may be having harmful effects on human health. The wider effects
of these substances have been inadequately studied. However, there
is already some evidence linking them to a range of possible health
problems including spontaneous heart attacks.
10. Fertiliser and mycobacterial disease:
Some soil bacteria can cause animal diseases. For example the
group called mycobacteria include the four strains which cause
TB as well as the bacteria, MAP, which causes Johne's disease
in cattle. There is now strong evidence that Crohn's disease in
humans may be caused by the same bacteria that causes Johne's
disease in cattle. Most mycobacteria, however, do not cause disease
and it is believed that both humans and cattle acquire immunity
through general exposure to "environmental" mycobacteria.
For example, exposure to the other strains may help humans and
cattle be resistant to the strains which cause TB.
It is possible that the use of agro-chemicals
changes the susceptibility of animals to these diseases through
their effect on the balance of the soil microbiological population
and the soil environment. Recent research at University College
London found that ammonium based nitrogen fertilisers change the
balance of mycobacteria away from the slower growing strains that
would tend to confer immunity and in favour of the faster growing
strains. Other research at the University of Michigan established
a link between an increase in soil acidity (associated with the
application of ammonium based nitrogen) and a strongly increased
incidence of Johne's disease: for every 0.1 per cent increase
in acidity, there was a 5 per cent increase in the risk of Johne's
disease being found in cattle herds.
11. OPs and copper/manganese imbalance
and BSE: While not discounting the likelihood of contaminated
animal feed as having contributed to the spread of BSE, we think
it is very important that the role of organophosphates (OPs) and
an imbalance in copper and manganese in the origin of the epidemic
are properly investigated. Mark Purdey has provided very good
evidence of a link which seems far stronger than the contaminated
feed explanation alone. We regret that his efforts have been so
heavily discredited without foundation.
According to Mr Purdey, prion proteins are distorted
when exposed to a deficiency of copper and an excess of manganese,
as prions then bind to the latter instead of copper as they do
normally. It appears that the emergence of BSE and nvCJD all around
the world can be explained in such terms. For example, UK cattle
farmers were required to apply an organophosphate, phosmet, to
their animals at particularly high doses during the 1970s; this
chemical captures copper in the body. Meanwhile, cattle were being
fed chicken manure from birds fed manganese supplements to increase
their egg yields, ie providing an excess of manganese. A similar
copper/manganese imbalance also helps explain the regional incidence
of nvCJD in humans in the UK. Of the two main clusters, one is
in Kent in the middle of a fruit and hop growing area where large
quantities of OPs and manganese based fungicides are used. The
other is in Queniborough in Leicestershire, which has a dyeworks;
these use large quantities of manganese.
In France, phosmet was first mandatory in Brittany:
20 of the initial 28 cases of BSE emerged there, and the subsequent
spread of BSE in the rest of France mirrors the use of phosmet.
Apparently, in every case in Iceland, Colorado, Slovakia and Sardinia,
BSE/CJD clusters can also be explained this way.
In a laboratory study, a team of biochemists
in Cambridge have now found that when copper is substituted by
manganese in prion proteins, the prions adopt precisely the same
distinguishing features which characterise cases of BSE.
12. Hormone growth promoters and cancer:
In 1997, the World Cancer Research Fund and the COMA Committee
both produced reports on diets and cancer which linked bowel and
some other cancers to the consumption of red meat. Close examination
of the data reveals that this link was predominantly found in
studies in North America and some other countries where hormone
growth promoters are used, while eight studies in EU countries,
where they have been banned for more than a decade, failed to
show any such association. We note that the British government
has recently restated its opposition to the ban on hormone implants
in beef cattle and there is continuing pressure from the World
Trade Organisation for the EU to relax its ban.
13. Large abattoirs and meat cutting
plants and food poisoning: We believe that there is a strong
link between the size of the unit and the level of risk of the
spread and transfer of food poisoning bacteria. This is for four
reasons: (i) in large units, if problems with food poisoning bacteria
occur, then the number of retail outlets affected and consumers
potentially affected is also large. Small units, on the other
hand, mean any problems are much more contained; (ii) large units
have more surfaces which can support populations of bacteria.
Apparently, large meat-packing plants in Europe and North America
have 2-3 km of conveyor belt. Work in America has found that these
cannot be properly cleaned and are harbouring thriving populations
of bacteria, particularly the virulent strain of E.coli 0157:H7
(New Scientist article, 11 March 2000); (iii) large abattoirs
mean livestock has to travel further. This means greater animal
stress levels which can increase the level of bacteria 1,000 fold
through faecal contamination of the hides (report form the Parliamentary
Office of Science and Technology: "Safer eatingmicrobiological
food poisoning and its prevention", 1997); and (iv) finally,
large abattoirs service the more intensive animal production units,
so the chance of a problem occurring to begin with is greater
(we believe intensive housing systems encourage greater levels
and more virulent strains of bacteria).
With the large decline in abattoir numbers in
the UK, from about 1,385 11 years ago to about 330 now, there
has been an increase in the number of carcasses handled by large
abattoirs. Though less than 200 of the remaining 330 abattoirs
are "commercial abattoirs" (meaning that they process
5,000 cattle or 25,000 sheep annually), in total they handle c
95 per cent of throughput in the UK. We greatly welcome the Government's
agreement to provide additional funding and change inspection
charges to a headage basis, as we believe this will prevent the
sector declining any further.
MAFF have admitted in correspondence (April
1999) that small plants probably pose a lower risk to public health
than large plants. If meat hygiene control is to move towards
a risk based approach, it is important that the relationship between
plant size and risk is properly understood.
(C) GENERAL
14. Genetic diversity and disease susceptibility
and epidemics: We believe that the level of genetic diversity
within agriculture is a key factor for public health. In our view,
agricultural genetic diversity can help determine whether local
crop and livestock disease outbreaks remain local/regional or
become national epidemics. It seems logical that the less diversity
there is in the system, the wider and faster new bacterial, viral
or other pathogenic strains can spread throughout the national
agricultural base and, where transmittable to human beings, have
the potential to become national health problems. Crop and animal
breeding has now become such a specialised and centralised industry
that diversity has been severely eroded. In our view, this represents
a major and increasing risk to national health (and to confidence
in British agriculture): there urgently needs to be much greater
understanding of this subject. The Irish potato famine of 1846
is an example of a past national crisis which followed low genetic
diversity in the crop.
15. Excessive hygiene and asthma, allergies
and lowered immunity: The current approach to avoiding disease
is through "hygiene"restricting exposure to pathogensrather
than through the positive development of "health"the
development of resistance to disease. This is being applied at
an agricultural level and in food processing and handling. While
it is clearly important to take precautions to avoid dangerous
pathogens such as E.coli 0157, excessive hygiene could also be
a cause of many health problems. To ensure that in our pursuit
of the former we are not doing more harm than good, there needs
to be a much better understanding of the beneficial role of most
bacteria. It is our view, that the current emphasis on hygiene
is already excessive and the balance needs to be reviewed.
Apparently, this notion that there may be a
serious downside to hygiene has been discussed in medical journals
and scientific meetings for some time. A feature of biological
systems is "hormesis", a process whereby exposure to
low levels of otherwise harmful or similar agents can result in
a stimulating or other beneficial effect. It is well accepted
that low levels of physical stress, through exercise, makes people
fitter and stronger and more healthy. We believe regular exposure
to low levels of microbes has a similar positive effect on health.
Thus, an insufficient exposure to bacteria through food and other
routes, means that the immunity of many modern humans has probably
been dangerously lowered, such that we are thus more likely to
succumb when exposed to more serious levels of infection.
This explanation has apparently already been
blamed for the rise in asthma and similar illnesses, and it seems
this could also be a cause of cancer, together with the lowered
level of natural anti-cancer agents in the modern diet mentioned
previously. For example, asthma, hayfever, and eczema are all
more common in professional and small families than in working-class
and large families, where exposure to microbes would be expected
to be higher. It is thought that microbes "train" the
immune system not to overreact to dust and pollen.
Last year, Professor Mel Greaves of the Institute
of Cancer Research in London, also suggested a link between childhood
leukaemia and excessive hygiene, including the consumption of
"perfect" looking fruit and vegetables. If young children
are under exposed to microbes as they are growing up, then when
they go to school, for example, the sudden strong immune response
that would be triggered on exposure to germs, would mean a large
release of chemicals in the body, which he believes might damage
the bone marrow. We further believe that lowered immunity might
be an important factor in the modern incidence of many diseases.
In the light of the intentions of the European
Commission and the Food Standards Agency to develop new measures
including HACCP, and recent consultations on the use of irradiation,
we believe that it is extremely important that the relationship
between hygiene and disease is much better understood. Equally,
so that more appropriate policies can be adopted in future, it
is important that "health", in terms of disease resistance
and appropriate nutrition is also well researched and understood.
We consider this subject area to be a priority.
5. PROPOSITION
OF A
MAJOR LINK
BETWEEN AGRICULTURE
AND HEALTH
The Soil Association believes that there is
a direct link between intensive farming practices and a decline
in many aspects of human health. If our proposition is correct,
the implications are enormous:
Individual Quality of Life
Good health is basic for the quality of life
of each individual person. Minor ailments such as allergies and
food intolerances bring discomfort and inconvenience to large
numbers of people. Other problems such as diabetes can have a
major disruptive effect on a person's life. Poor mental health
or early puberty can affect the development and thus fortunes
of a person. Major problems such as cancer, degenerative disease
and antibiotic resistant bacteria can cause death and trauma.
Society
Health problems such as mental illness and,
possibly, early puberty could have an important negative effect
on the whole of society. Young people affected may play truant
or leave school without qualifications, leading to more crime
or more teenage pregnancies. Adults with mental illness may find
it hard to find and stay in jobs.
National Economy
Health spending is a major cost for the Government.
The NHS budget is £59 billion annually and there is always
enormous pressure to increase funding. Physical and mental health
problems also bring major costs to other Government departments,
such as through demand for social security and increases in crime.
As long as the Government's health policy focuses on treating
as opposed to improving health, these costs will only increase.
In comparison, only £3 billion is spent directly on UK agriculture
each year via the Ministry of Agriculture, and an additional c
£1.6 billion is spent annually on the external environmental
costs of intensive farming (J Pretty et al, An assessment
of the total external costs of UK agriculture, 2000).
In view of the overall cost of health problems,
even a modest improvement in health would result in important
savings. Apart from food production methods, pollution and lifestyle,
other origins of health costs must include accidents and genetic
defects. While these cannot be avoided, food production methods
can be addressed and may have the benefit of reducing susceptibility
to other problems, such as those arising from stress. It is for
this reason that we consider that agriculture should be treated
as the nation's primary health service; it could be the simplest,
most cost effective and most extensive means of reducing the Government's
health costs and improving the population's health.
For example, even if agricultural methods account
for only, say, a fifth of the total NHS budget, £12 billion
could be saved annually, plus part of the costs of social security
and crime (depending on the health problems involved). This is
far more than would be needed to convert and maintain all of UK
agriculture to organic farming (ie avoiding all the practices
that are implicated in agriculturally related health problems).
In other words, the health and associated costs
of the UK's agricultural policies are almost certainly far greater
than the direct costs spent by MAFF. The health implications should
therefore be one of, if not the, most important consideration
in the design of the Government's agricultural policy, something
which is not the case at the moment. There is therefore an urgent
need to estimate the costs to the Exchequer of intensive farming
and develop joined-up health and agricultural policies. Equally,
research on the health effects of farming methods should form
a major part of the Government's agricultural research budget.
6. APPROACHES
TO HEALTH
AND AGRICULTURAL
RESEARCH AND
POLICY
The relationship between agriculture and health
is complex and not yet well understood. To assist progress, we
suggest the following principles should be used to guide research
and policies:
Subjects for Government Research:
Government research should be particularly targeted at:
delivering public benefits, eg improving
health, the environment and animal welfare;
delivering Government policy eg barriers
to the introduction of solutions;
informing and advising Government
policy development;
solutions which are not easily marketed
and therefore tend not to be supported by industry, eg cultural
agricultural methods for disease control rather than product orientated
methods.
The general subject of the link between agriculture
and health stands out as a major gap, which we propose should
in future become a priority.
Addressing causes, not symptoms:
Care should be taken that the ultimate or underlying causes are
being addressed, not simply the symptoms or most immediate explanations;
otherwise problems and costs can eventually be far greater. Despite
its founding objectives, the National Health Service concentrates
on treating illness; it does little to prevent illness. Likewise
in agriculture, many conventional treatments (such as the use
of agro-chemicals) treat only the symptoms and often exacerbate
problems in the long-term or create new ones.
"Health" rather than "hygiene": This
is a particular example of the above. Hygiene regulations, if
excessive, might actually reduce health through decreasing natural
immunity and can also have the perverse effect of promoting intensive
farming and the associated health risks through their economic
effect. While introduced to address health problems caused primarily
by intensive farming (eg BSE), hygiene regulations bring by far
the greatest economic burden to less intensive and smaller food
production units. The case of small and medium sized abattoirs
going bankrupt through the cost of daily inspection, is a clear
example. It is therefore extremely important that the concept
of positive "health" gains clear appreciation as something
separate from, and much more important than, "hygiene".
This will require radical changes in thinking.
Conditions that increase health risks:
Some systems are inherently more risky than others. For example,
the chances and consequences of a hazard emerging grow with (i)
the scale on which the practice/product is used, and (ii) scale
of the system into which a hazard would emerge. Research is needed
to identify such factors and investigate their role in current
health problems. In agriculture, the following all appear to increase
risk:
(i) centralisation of agricultural inputs;
(ii) density of livestock housing;
(iii) scale of production and processing
units; and
(iv) low genetic diversity.
Areas where research tends to be limited:
"absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence".
The current approach that problems are not considered until there
is strong empirical evidence of a problem, is not acceptable.
Equally, the possibility of important benefits in an alternative
approach (such as organic farming) needs consideration, whether
there is proof or not. This is because, whether or not we have
the definitive scientific knowledge, decisions still have to be
made. Also, having information of just some aspects of an issue
should not be confused with knowledge of the whole, as is very
often the case.
Currently there is a very strong dependency
on scientific evidence in decision-making. However, certain aspects
of a subject are much more easy to research than others, and as
a result scientific knowledge and its ability to assist decision
making, is heavily weighted towards these. For example, it is
comparatively easy to ascertain direct and short term effects
in controlled circumstances; but much more difficult or expensive
to identify indirect or long-term effects and effects on complex
systems. It is for this reason that we do not know what the cocktail
effects of pesticides are or the exact health benefits of eating
organic food. However, this does not mean that these areas are
any less important, indeed, they may be more important than the
areas we know. We therefore, urge, that these aspects are identified
by Government scientists and addressed as part of the decision-making
process through alternative ways.
Generational effects: research on
health effects needs to consider the possible effect over generations.
Studies on cats have shown that negative effects may increase
with each generation. In a study, cats were fed a defective diet.
While the first generation showed some but minimal health effects,
the next generation had several health problems, while the third
had many severe problems from birth. Currently, people under 25
are the first generation to have grown up fully under the results
of intensive farming. If something similar happens to humans,
then much more serious health changes would be ahead of us.
Joined up thinking: a programme
of Government research on the effects of intensive farming and
health would be major progress in "joined up" thinking.
It is also important that the designers and advisers in any such
research are "joined up" and that Government agricultural
and health policy also develops common objectives and co-ordination.
We would be happy to assist in this.
Common sense, informed opinion and precautionary
principle: where scientific evidence is absent, common sense
and informed opinion should be used to make judgements. This requires
researchers to be prepared, and make an effort, to advise policy
officials of their opinion in areas where definitive evidence
is absent, something scientists currently often shy away from.
For areas as vital and basic as food and health, and the environment,
it is important that the Government uses the precautionary principle
wherever there is significant uncertainty and where outcome of
an error could be serious (eg for GM foods!).
7. CONCLUSIONS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
There has been a large number of negative developments
in health since the introduction of intensive farming. Research
and understanding suggest numerous possible links. We believe
that the method of food production may be the largest and most
accessible influence on human health and health costs and propose
that agriculture be treated as the nation's primary health service.
If our proposition of a major link between agriculture and health
is correct, the implications for society and the economy are immense:
the economic savings, for example, of avoiding those farming practices
implicated in health problems could be of the order of £10
billion annually, possibly much more. This is far more than is
needed to have all of Britain's agriculture organic, which would
bring other important Government objectives of sustainability,
rural employment, high animal welfare plus additional economic
savings through the savings in environment costs.
Despite the importance of the subject, research
into the relationship between agriculture and health has been
lacking. We greatly welcome the Committee's interest in the subject
now and propose the following recommendations:
(1) A programme of research into the health
effects of intensive farming.
(2) A programme of research into the health
effects of modern food processing.
(3) Quantification of the health costs of
(i) intensive farming and (ii) organic farming.
(4) "Joined up" Government policy
development for agriculture and health, with health becoming a
major factor in the design of agricultural policy.
(5) A review of the Government's health and
agriculture policy to focus on the development of "health"
and not "hygiene".
(6) Investment in the development of organic
food and farming.
6 February 2001
|