I am a keen yoga follower, who practices yoga regularly, including Tuesday’s lunchtime class here at CABI. I also receive daily yoga insights from the Yoga Journal giving tips on poses to try at home. I thought I’d share today’s tip on Viparita Karani or ‘legs-up-the-wall pose’ with the 'handpicked' readers, as it is a very relaxing pose and, it turns out to be also a useful pose to practice for health. Read on to learn why!

Many yoga teachers believe that Viparita Karani is good for almost everything that ails you, including anxiety, arthritis, digestive problems, headache, high and low blood pressure, insomnia, migraine, mild depression, respiratory ailments, urinary disorders, varicose veins, premenstrual syndrome, and menopause. Something to try whenever you can’t get to sleep!

Not only that, but Viparita Karani is also one of the most relaxing yoga postures there is - and all you need is a wall to take advantage of its healing benefits.

Here is how it’s done:

Sit sideways at the wall, with one hip close to it and your legs drawn into your chest. Roll onto your back with your legs bent, letting your buttocks come to the wall. Then straighten your legs up the wall. If your buttocks don't quite touch the wall, lift your hips by pressing with your feet, slide closer, and lower your hips. If you have tight hamstrings, your legs will not meet the wall. (If that's the case for you, try bending your knees and letting your heels soften into the wall.) Stay here until you feel calm and relaxed. You can also see instructions here on an even more relaxing way of doing Viparita Karani, as in the above photo.

I also searched the CAB Abstracts database to see what we have on Yoga and I found 125 records in Cabdirect, including one by Sanchari Sinha et al. (1), which examined whether or not yoga can decrease oxidative stress during exercise. They conducted the study on 51 healthy male volunteers from the Indian Navy. The soldiers trained for 6 months on a yoga schedule consisting of prayers, asana, pranayama and meditation. The control group continued with regular army training. Their results showed a significant increase in the total antioxidant status of the yoga individuals’ body and they concluded that yoga can maintain or improve antioxidant level of the body. According to the authors, the relevance of this is that yoga practice can be used to maintain the antioxidant defence system under stressful conditions of training in the case of soldiers and athletes. A number of studies also showed positive effects of yoga on obesity prevention (See 2, 3 for example).

References

(image by Just being myself)

A polar bear may come to mind first when you think about climate change but public health professionals are arguing that the real face of climate change is that of a child.

In the panel session on “Climate change, water and health”, at the American Public Health Association Meeting, panellists explained why:

The expected changes in temperature and sea levels will increase the prevalence of food and waterborne diseases, as well as increasing risk of malnutrition. And children are in the front line. 88% of climate change related disease will occur in children, we were told.

Developing country populations are also very vulnerable. Many of the millennium development goals relating to health are threatened by climate change. Food insecurity could be doubled in the next 40 years if we don’t deal with climate change, according to Dr Johnathan Patz.

Dr Maria Neira said adaptation strategies to deal with climate change must include measures to reduce the increased burden of disease it brings. Basic measures such as improved sanitation and hygiene are key to containing the increase in food and waterborne disease that will result from climate change. And they are not rocket science - we know how to do this.

We should be thinking of the people not just the polar bears.

It has been a recurring theme at many Olympic Games. A city spends several years and millions of pounds putting its bid document together, which to satisfy both the IOC and the host population has to include demonstrations of popular support, and projections of lasting economic, social and sporting benefits. But after the euphoria of winning, the costs routinely soar to well beyond initial estimates, there is disruption to locals while Games sites are constructed and infrastructure is developed, and doubts set in about whether the benefits really justify the costs.

Bid committees tend to tout hosting the Olympics as the opportunity for a tourism bonanza - but is this really the case? As Editor of CABI's Leisure Tourism Database the benefits or otherwise of the Olympics is a topic I've regularly had to address, as positive projections from bid committees and host city tourism board are countered by negative views from the political opposition or economic think tanks. As preparations for London 2012 take shape, the European Tour Operators Association (ETOA) has entered the debate today, with an analysis suggesting that the idea of a tourism boost from the Games is wholly illusory.

The ETOA press release says that it looked at visitor arrival statistics for the past Olympics in Beijing ('08), Athens ('04), Sydney (2000), Atlanta ('96), Barcelona ('92) and Seoul ('88). Whilst some of these games saw a peak in demand during the games, all saw a major disruption to their normal tourism market and none revealed any conspicuous tourism growth, according to the ETOA.

The latest data from Beijing is particularly striking. From the spring of 2008, international visitor arrivals to Beijing plummeted, and in the month before the Games they were 30% down on the previous year. In the months after the Games, the tourism slump continued, with international arrivals more than 20% down.

Now, Beijing may be a special case. In the run up to the Games there was widespread negative publicity in the world media, with news in the preceding months highlighting political unrest in Tibet, human rights concerns, the closure of many bars and restaurants, and pollution fears. There were also difficulties, or at least media reports of problems, in obtaining visas, and news stories of inflated hotel prices. In the light of this, it was perhaps not surprising that fewer than predicted international tourists made the long trip to Beijing. Compared to Beijing, London has the advantage of easy access from many competing nations in Europe, while Rio (host in 2016) has the advantage of a wonderful natural setting and a global reputation as a 'party city'.

But the ETOA also suggests that tourism in Sydney stalled around the 2000 Games. Their analysis says that in the five years prior to the Olympics, Australia's and New Zealand's tourism was growing at the same rate but Australia's growth lost ground significantly straight after the Olympics. It is suggested that the Olympics did not materially help Australian tourism, or if it did, it made very little difference. Sydney tourism even underperformed against the rest of Australia. And in Athens, the ETOA says there were considerable losses before and after the games both in the Capital and throughout Greece.

Barcelona is the example commonly held up as a model of showing long-term benefit from the Olympics. The international exposure and infrastructure improvements that went with the Games, coupled with natural advantages of climate, natural setting and good food and music, are regarded as helping to turn the Spanish city into a leading international tourism destination. There are other intangible benefits that may stem from being an Olympic city, providing the Games are successful; improved civic and national pride, better transport and accommodation infrastructure in the long-term, and sports facilities which may or may not find a use once the Games are over. An economic paper written by Rose and Spiegel earlier this year also suggests that hosting a mega-event like the Olympics has a positive impact on national exports.

But there is a twist to their findings. The authors say that while trade is around 30% higher for countries that have hosted the Olympics, unsuccessful bids to host the Olympics have a similar positive impact on exports. It is suggested that the Olympic effect on trade may be attributable to the signal a country sends when bidding to host the games, rather than the act of actually holding a mega-event.

Which begs the question, in light of the ETOA claim that tourism is commonly harmed by hosting the Games. When bidding for the Olympics, is it best to lose?

According to Lord Stern of Brentford, what we eat does matter and we should be eating less meat or even becoming vegetarians to reduce greenhouse gases emissions and, therefore, stop global warming from increasing and climate change from happening.

In an interview with The Times newspaper in London, Lord Stern said “meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world’s resources. A vegetarian diet is better.” I tend to agree with Lord Stern, not only because I have adopted a vegetarian diet for the past 24 years, but also because Lord Stern is a leading authority on global warming and wrote the influential and much discussed 'Stern Review on the cost of tackling global warming'. As an economist, he would have also examined the issue from an economics point of view, as well as from the environmental perspective. I have also searched the CAB Abstracts database and found some backing of my own to the argument that vegetarianism is better to the environment and the way forward, if we want to save the planet. I have listed two of them at the end of this blog.

Food production has an impact on the environment, since agricultural practices pollute soil, air and water, erodes soils, consumes imported energy form oil, and contributes to loss of biodiversity. The reason a vegetarian diet is better is that a non-vegetarian diet consumes 2.9 times more water, 2.5 times more primary energy, 13 times more fertilizer and 1.4 times more pesticides than did a vegetarian diet, as shown in the results of a study by Marlow et al published recently in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Furthermore, animal rearing increases the amount of the greenhouse gases, methane and CO2 emissions (it’s estimated that 18% of the total CO2 emissions derive from farmed animals). Things like N-cost, defined as the ratio between fertilizer N-input (including animal manure) and the N in products, is around 3 for wheat, 14 for dairy products and 21 for meat. Therefore, if we were all vegetarians, we would also consume less fertilizers.

Some people argue that a lot of the lands used for animal rearing are not suitable for growing crops, so we might as well rear animals in them, which is a fair argument, but there is good land used for pastures too and these could be used for crops instead. A FAO report on how to feed the world in 2050 estimated that the world’s population will reach 9 billion (34% higher than today) by 2050, and that annual cereal production will need to rise to 3 billion tonnes from 2.1 billion today and annual meat production will need to rise by over 200 million tonnes to reach 470 million tonnes. DEFRA’s UK Food Security Assessment makes all the questions about our relationship with food more urgent, as the UK food production has declined over the past 20 years. Add to that the challenges of diseases such as BSE and foot and mouth, I think we need to think about alternative ways to efficiently feed our increasing population and maintain or increase food security.

Would the section of the population, which is totally obsessed with meat change their ways, specially those who think a meal is not a meal if it doesn’t contain some medium-rare to rare cooked slaughtered animal? Probably not, but why the obsession with meat anyway? Have they not yet tasted Quorn? The ultimate tasty and sustainable mycoprotein alternative to meat, produced by fermentation in a bioreactor from a microorganism (Fusarium), which is readily available. I know some people who have tasted it loved it and others (usually the devoted meat eaters) say they don’t like it. I believe the reason for this is that the people who disliked it had made up their mind, even before they tasted the food. I became a vegetarian because I didn’t like the taste of meat, especially beef, and for many years I used to spend a lot of time cooking dishes with pulses, lentils, nuts and vegetables to create tasty-nutritious veggie dishes. Now, I have the time-saving quorn for when I don’t fancy spending a lot of time in the kitchen.

Can people tell the difference between quorn and meat once it’s cooked in classical recipes? When I started using quorn in the 1990s, I carried out a test of a small section of the population of my friends (8 adults and around 5 children) during a birthday dinner party. I secretly cooked a ‘chilli con quorn’, using quorn mince, obviously, from which I separated a small portion for the vegetarians (my daughter and I). I then served the chilli and didn’t say it was vegetarian, but everybody assumed only the portion I separated for the two vegetarians was actually vegetarian and the chilli in the large pan was meat chilli. Everybody ate and loved it, and complimented me on my culinary skills. I then asked my guests, if they had noticed anything different about the chilli and everybody said no. I then confessed that the whole lot was made from quorn mince. All, but one guest, were astonished how similar the tastes of quorn mince used instead of beef mince in a chilli are. The one person who said he thought there was something different about my chilli still admitted he enjoyed it and would eat it again. The moral of the story is: ‘it’s what you do with your meat or meat substitute that matters, when it comes to enjoying a tasty meal’.

In The Times interview Lord Stern said he predicted that people’s attitudes would evolve until meat eating became unacceptable. “I think it’s important that people think about what they are doing and that includes what they are eating,” he said. Lord Stern than added “I am 61 now and attitudes towards drinking and driving have changed radically since I was a student. People change their notion of what is responsible. They will increasingly ask about the carbon content of their food.” Anthropogenic warming over the last three decades has likely had a discernible influence at the global scale on observed changes in many physical and biological systems (IPCC Report). Experts believe it will continue to do so, if we don't reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and by 2050 maybe we won’t have a choice but to change our diet to a veggie one, if the increase in global warming continues and exceeds 2 °C. We might only be able to grow food in bioreactors and live on a diet of quorn and whatever vegetable we manage to grow in our own gardens and allotments.

Note: Lord Stern is former chief economist of the World Bank and now he is a Professor of Economics at the London School of Economics.

Further Reading

1. The nitrogen cost of food production: Norwegian society. Bleken, M. A.; Bakken, L. R.; Ambio, 1997, 26, 3, pp 134-142, 45 ref.

2. Diet and the environment: does what you eat matter? Marlow, H. J.; Hayes, W. K.; Soret, S.; Carter, R. L.; Schwab, E. R.; Sabaté, J.; Rajaram, S.; Sabaté, J.; American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2009, 89, 5(S), pp 1699S-1703S, 87 ref.
   
   
3. Also visit the reports section of the CABI internet resource Environmental Impact, where you will find over 1000 recent reports from high profile organisations such as the UN, EC, WHO, World Bank, DEFRA, and the UK Environment Agency, on the subject of global warming, climate change and impacts on biological systems, as well as mitigation and adaptation options.
   

“Scientists say that 350ppm CO2 in the atmosphere is the safe limit for humanity.” Read on to find out why.

The International Day of Climate Action has been created by 350.org, ‘an international campaign which created a movement to unite the world on solutions to the climate crisis.’ The theme for this year’s campaign is 350 - climate experts have estimated that 350ppm is the safe upper limit for CO2 concentration in the Earth’s atmosphere. Currently the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere is averaging at 385ppm, which is quite possibly high enough to cause climate change.

The Arctic is the clearest proof that climate change is already occurring much more rapidly than scientists have previously thought, as can be seen in the above picture taken by NASA. The size of the Arctic sea ice was around 39% below the summer average for 1979-2000. This evidence has brought scientists to believe that the Arctic will be ice-free during summers as early as 2011 to 2015, which is 80 years earlier than was predicted a few years ago.

The 350 campaign is using the internet to unite the public, media and political leaders behind the 350 target. Actions are planned around the world and when I was writing this blog (2 days before the event) there were 4317 actions planned in 171 countries. By following the link to www.350.org the campaign website can be accessed for further details of events (click on the 'actions' link for events taking place in London). There is an animated introduction to the mission so that it will be accessible to all languages. There is also a link to the science behind 350, which gives a nice and brief explanation of global warming, its consequences and what can be done to halt it. It discusses the latest updates on issues around global warming and climate change and includes a list of recommended resources, with links to various important papers, reports and policy documents.

A recent blog by 350.org creator Bill McKibben can also be accessed. The blog also has the latest developments on climate change and useful links to Bill’s other articles.

mission http://www.350.org/mission

science http://www.350.org/about/science

actions http://www.350.org/map#/map/51.5001524/-0.1262362/11

Bill’s blog http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/10/the-science-of-350-the-most-important-number.php

Utube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqof641pWys&feature=player_embedded

In the West, we live in a world of information overload. At our fingertips we have instant access to a wealth of knowledge, and then some…We struggle to keep pace with rapidly developing technology but this is only a problem for the well heeled. In the developing world the story is starkly different.

“When it rains, it does not rain on one roof only”

Raisin poisoning can be very serious with most affected dogs developing vomiting and/or diarrhoea within 6-12 hr of eating the grapes or raisins. Other signs include lethargy, anorexia, abdominal pain, weakness, dehydration, polydipsia, and tremors (shivering). Oliguric or anuric renal failure can develop within 24-72 hr after eating the raisins, and once anuric renal failure develops, most dogs die or are destroyed. Some dogs develop transient elevations in serum glucose, liver enzymes, pancreatic enzymes, serum calcium, or serum phosphorus develop in some dogs.

The Merck veterinary manual recommends that affected dogs should be given an emetic as soon as possible to try and eliminate the fruit, followed by doses of activated charcoal. With large ingestions or in cases where vomiting and/or diarrhoea has spontaneously developed within 12 hr of ingestion of grapes or raisins, aggressive fluid diuresis for 48 hr is recommended. Renal function and fluid balance should be monitored during fluid administration. For oliguric dogs, urine production may be stimulated by using dopamine and/or furosemide. Anuric dogs are unlikely to survive unless peritoneal dialysis or haemodialysis is performed, and even then the prognosis is guarded.

The interesting thing about raisin/grape poisoning is why it has only been reported in recent years? Dogs have not suddenly become more greedy and less discerning in what they choose to eat. Also the availability of raisins in houses would have been greater in the past when more people baked fruit cakes and their own Christmas puddings at home. I far as I know, dogs (some breeds in particular) have always been great opportunists when it comes to raiding the larder, so its hard to belief that they never had the chance to eat raisins before 1989. Could it be that raisins have changed in some way? Or is it just that cases of raisin poisoning did occur in the past and were just not reported? Some authors have suggested that a mycotoxin contaminating the raisins may be to blame for the poisonings. Would some change in the processing of raisin and grapes be responsible? If the toxin can cause kidney failure in dogs does it have an adverse effect in humans? As yet no toxin has been identified, so suggesting a mycotoxin is just speculation. So, looking at the literature on a particular topic, like raisin poisoning, may not provide all the answers we would like, but it does help to us to ask the right questions.

Representatives from more than 40 countries have gathered today to attend a day of presentations and debate. In a highly stimulating first session, a number of global thought leaders gave their views on food security into the future: can this be achieved and if so how?