Today, each of us produces an average 590 kg of waste per year! Sorting is clearly not enough. The only viable solution is to generate less. Let’s see how to reduce the volume of our bins easily.

To avoid producing waste, you have to know how to buy the right products and then use them. Here are 10 gestures allowing you to consume more responsibly:- by preserving the resources used for making objects, some of which are not renewable;- by limiting the pollution of water and soil, greenhouse gas emissions and reducing the costs of collection, processing and storage.

1. Use reusable bags or baskets

The lifespan of disposable bags is very short: they are usually thrown after only 20 minutes. When they are abandoned in nature, it’s worse since they are ultra polluting and put 200 years to degrade when they are plastic. 17 billion of single-use plastic bags are consumed every year in Europe, of which 8 billion are abandoned in nature.

In several European countries, stores will no longer be able to offer disposable plastic bags from January 2016. But note that paper alternatives are hardly practical (more fragile and less comfortable).

By using a shopping bag or reusable bag, you can reduce your packaging waste. There are sturdy, pretty, pocket-sided shopping bags to have them ready to use, for shopping’s of the week.

2. Choosing the right packaging

Focus on recyclable and ecological packaging, such as glass (jars) and aluminum cans (canned, coffee cans, etc.) which are recyclable for life. Prefer cardboard (recyclable) to plastic that is not recyclable.

Avoid overpacks (cardboard + plastic inside). For dairy, compotes, etc., prefer large containers to individual. If the composition of your home makes you use individual pots instead, choose the ones not surrounded by cardboard.

For low-perishable foodstuffs (tea, coffee, rice, pasta, flour, sugar, etc.), you should also prefer large packagings.

To keep and transport the children’s snacks, prefer a reusable snack box to individual sachets and other canteens.

3. Buy in bulk and cut

Meat, cooked meat, fish, seafood, cereals, vegetables, fruits, legumes but also screws and bolts or some detergents are available in bulk, retail or cutting. This makes it possible to take just the amount you need, to make a few savings while reducing your waste.

For this, you can use your own containers (plastic boxes, reusable paper bags, etc.) to do your shopping. You will quickly take on new habits.

4. Avoid food waste

By buying on a smart way, keeping your food well, by cleverly cooking you can avoid throwing food to save money.

Make a shopping list before you go to the store (by checking your stock), pay attention to the expiration dates at the store as at home, respect the types of storage indicated on the products, cook quantities adapted to the number of Eat at the table, accommodate the leftovers.

By limiting food wastage you are saving on food that has been discarded without being consumed and you are reducing your waste by 20 kg per year. In fact, each Europeans throws on average 7 kg of still packaged food to which we must add another 13 kg of leftover meals, damaged fruits and vegetables, unused bread…

5. Use your own cup in the office instead of disposable cups

Drinking your tea or coffee in a nice cup will increase the enjoyment of your break while reducing your waste. If the machines in your workplace doesn’t have a cup detector, check to see if it can be easily remedied.

6. Make better selections of equipment and gifts

Choosing a durable and repairable furniture or household equipment is an important environmental gesture.

Buying second-hand, renting or borrowing products which serve little is also a good reflex. Many websites now offer the opportunity to find second-hand objects or rent objects for short periods of time.

Also think of dematerialized gifts such as cinema or theatre subscriptions, a stay in lodge… such as things which will not be able to finish in the trash.

7. Making compost

Peelings vegetables, leftover meals, lawn mowing, dead leaves, hedge sizes, etc. can be composted on the ground in the garden or in a special tray. In an apartment, you can use a small indoor compost machine. Some cities even offer special bins that are exchangeable in waste against the result of composting, a quality natural fertilizer. A qualitative compost should be stirred once a month.

By making compost, you can reduce your waste by at least 60 kg per year.

8. Giving, selling instead of throwing

I have at home objects which I no longer have the utility but which are still in good condition so why throw them away? By giving the objects you no longer need but is still in a good condition, you can help your relatives or associations that might need them. By selling them second-hand, I can make a little extra money. By swapping them, I can acquire in exchange other items that I need and that will not cost me anything.

And in addition, by selling or giving the items in good condition that I no longer use, I can reduce my waste by 13 kg a year.

9. Limit paper print-outs

Printed documents get lost easily, must be stored so take up space, and end up costing a lot of paper, ink … In addition they diffuse less well than their electronic counterparts. Print if it’s really indispensable, you will reduce up to 6 kg of your waste per year.

10. Prefer rechargeable batteries

More expensive to buy, rechargeable batteries have a much longer lifespan than their disposable cousins. Rechargeable batteries are beneficial: long term money savings but also time since you no longer need to go to the store to look for new ones when they are discharged. Not to mention they avoid you from rejecting polluting waste.

The best waste is the one that is not produced.

10 simple steps to reduce our waste
Nutrition and Innovation

The increase in the amount of atmospheric CO2 could lead to protein deficiency among millions of people around the world.

Climate change increases the risk of heat waves, floods, some diseases, extinction of species… and, according to a Harvard university study which has just appeared in Environmental Health Perspectives, it could also make our diet less nutritious.

Today about 76% of the world’s population pulls most of its protein from plant sources, such as cereals. These agricultural productions are dependent on the climate and the atmospheric CO2 rate.

For this study, the researchers combined the results of experiments on cultures exposed to high concentrations of CO2 with food, economic and demographic information. According to their results, if CO2 levels continue to rise, rice, wheat, barley and potato protein will decrease by 7.6%, 7.8%, 14.1% and 6.4%, respectively. Thus, the standard diet of an Indian would lose 5.3% of protein. These results suggest that 150 million more people may be in protein deficiency due to elevated CO2 levels.

If CO2 levels continue to rise as planned, 18 countries may lose 5% of the food protein from crops such as rice or wheat in 2050. At the same time, livestock could be less productive because of high temperatures. In addition, global warming could also cause exceptional climatic events such as hurricanes complicating agricultural yields.

For Samuel Myers, one of Harvard’s researchers, “this study stresses the need for countries most at risk to actively monitor the nutritional sufficiency of their populations and, more fundamentally, the need for countries to curb Man-made CO2 emissions.”

Another article published in August 2017 suggests that iron content will decrease in crops, also because of high levels of CO2, which would lead to deficiencies and therefore anemias, especially among children under five years old and women who lives in the countries of Southeast Asia and North Africa.

Less protein in cereals because of global warming?
Nutrition and Innovation

Vitamin and fatty acid supplements have shown their interest in preventing damages induced from pollution.

According to World Health Organization (WHO), 92% of the world’s population will live in areas without meeting the air pollution limits set by the WHO. Fine particulate matter pollution PM2.5 (diameter less than 2.5 µm) raises health problems as these pollutants drop into the airways, where they can cause inflammation. Exposure to pollutants is associated with higher rates of cardiovascular and respiratory diseases and mortality, especially in the city. Despite the policies aimed at reducing air pollution, pollution peaks are frequently recorded.

But it may be interesting to consider taking some nutritional supplements to protect ourselves.

Group B vitamins

Air pollution acts on our genes. Specifically, it can alter DNA by an epigenetic mechanism, such as DNA methylation. These epigenetic modifications do not change the DNA sequence itself but are involved in important health phenomena, such as oxidative stress and inflammation.

In an article published in PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States), international researchers wanted to know whether vitamin B supplements could prevent the harmful effects of PM2.5 particles. B vitamins (including B6, B12 and folate) are cofactors in methylation reactions.

For this, the researchers gave either a placebo or a supplement of vitamin B (2.5 mg folic acid, 50 mg of vitamin B6 and 1 mg of vitamin B12) each day to the volunteers of the clinical trial. 10 of the volunteers were healthy people who did not smoke and were aged 18-60. PM2.5 particles were issued to the participants at a concentration of 250 µg/m3, using a mask. The study showed the epigenetic effect of air pollution: the fine particles induced changes (methylations) in genes implicated in the energetic metabolism of mitochondria (the energy plants of the cells).

The results also suggest that B vitamins could be used to prevent and mitigate the effects of air pollution on the epigenome because complementation prevented epigenetic changes.

Vitamins C and E

These two vitamins are antioxidants. In one study, the effects of vitamin C (500 mg/d) and vitamin E (800 mg/d) supplements were studied for 6 months among individuals exposed directly or indirectly to particulate emissions from a coal-fired power plant. Compared to the control group, those who received the vitamins saw the markers of oxidative damage drop and the levels of the antioxidant and nonenzymatic enzymes increase (glutathione, sulphur proteins, catalase, enzymes to glutathione).

Omega-3

In a controlled randomized trial, the effect of omega-3 (2 g fish oil/day) or placebo on the cardiovascular response to fine particulate matter was evaluated among institutionalized elderly people. Results: omega-3 fish oil warned of the negative impact of PM2.5 on cardiac variability, a marker of cardiovascular risk.

In another study, omega-3 (2 grams per day) increased the activity of an antioxidant enzyme, SOD (superoxide dismutase), 49% and the level of glutathione (main cell detoxifying) by 62%. Fat oxidation decreased by 72%. Thus, omega-3 appears to modulate the oxidative stress induced by PM2.5 particles by increasing the activity of the body’s antioxidants.

Reference

Péter S, Holguin F, Wood LG, Clougherty JE, Raederstorff D, Antal M, Weber P, Eggersdorfer M. Nutritional Solutions to Reduce Risks of Negative Health Impacts of Air Pollution. Nutrients. 2015 Dec 10;7(12):10398-416. doi: 10.3390/nu7125539.

Air pollution: food supplements protecting the body
Nutrition and Innovation

More and more studies show a natural environment is good for your health.

Less pollution, less stress, facilities to do sports, sunny, positive effects on mental or immune health… The benefits of living away from city centers are increasingly proven. Here are some arguments before you prepare your suitcases.

Lower mortality when living near nature

Researchers at the Harvard University Public Graduate School and the Brigham and Women’s Hospital wanted to examine the association between vegetation presence and mortality. For this, they used medical information on 108 630 women from the Nurses’ Health Study (USA) between 2000 and 2008. The mortality risk was compared with the level of vegetation present around the dwellings, measured by satellite imagery. There were 8 604 deaths over the period studied.

The 20% of women with the most vegetation in their environment (for 250 m around) had 12% less mortality than those with the least vegetation. This association was particularly strong for respiratory and cancer mortality: women living in areas with the most vegetation had 34% risk in fewer deaths from respiratory diseases compared to those with the least vegetation. These associations are explained by factors such as: physical activity, the presence of particles less than 2.5 µm, social life, mental health, exposure to air pollution, noise, or stress.

These results should encourage urban planners to incorporate more vegetation into urban areas.

Living in the mountains to keep your figure

According to a study of American soldiers, overweight people living at high altitudes would have less risk of tipping into obesity than those living at low altitudes. When the altitude rises, the air pressure decreases and the body has more difficulty in supplying oxygen: it’s in a situation of hypoxia. Studies have shown a reduction in appetite and body fat in conditions of hypoxia.

The researchers questioned whether hypoxia could limit the risk of obesity. They studied nearly 100 000 overweight soldiers stationed at different elevations in the United States, between 2006 and 2012. Some were assigned at high altitudes, more than 1 960 m, and others at low altitudes, i.e. less than 980 m.

Results: Soldiers assigned at high-altitude had a reduced obesity rate of 41% compared with those at low altitudes. These results appear to be confirmed by observations made on the civilian population: in fact, the American city where one is the thinnest is Boulder, Colorado, at 1 650 m altitude; the American city where one is the largest would be Huntington, West Virginia, located at 171 m altitude only.

This beneficial effect of altitude on weight could be explained for hormonal reasons because hypoxia is associated with an increase in leptin, a hormone suppressing appetite. Cholecystokinin, which stimulates the digestion of fats and proteins, and noradrenaline, which influences appetite by reducing blood flow to the intestine, both increase at high altitude.

In the countryside for good immunity

The idea that an increase in immune disorders (asthma, allergies…) in Western countries is linked to an excess of hygiene is not new: according to the hygienist hypothesis, our immune system would be less in contact with environmental micro-organisms, which would cause chronic inflammation problems.

Some important infections for immune development have been eliminated from developed countries. With urbanization, contacts with animals, green spaces, and therefore micro-organisms of the environment have diminished. The microbial diversity presents on the skin, in the intestine, the lungs has decreased; at the same time, micro-organisms in the environment have become less numerous due to better hygiene.

Because of the loss of old infections, the immune system would have become more dependent on microbiota, such as intestinal flora, and the environment. This is why exposure to environmental micro-organisms such as those which can be found in the countryside would play an important role. This would explain why people living in urban centers with little access to green spaces would suffer more chronic inflammation, as Christopher Lowry explains: chronic inflammation can lead to all kinds of problems, From irritable bowel syndrome to asthma, allergies and even depression.

At sea, health is also better

Spending the time near the sea has a beneficial effect on health. This is what researchers at the University of Exeter (England) say at a conference of the American Geophysical Union. A stay at the beach allows you to expose yourself to the sun and therefore to make the full of vitamin D. But that is not the only health benefit.

Researchers have studied the health of English populations at different points in the territory. They showed those who lived near the coasts had a better state of health. The reasons for this are different: living near the coast reduces stress but also encourages physical activity. Two positive health effects.

Another indication of the beneficial effect of the sea on well-being: an experiment carried out by the researchers. They proposed to different people pictures corresponding to views of hotel rooms; they asked them how much they were willing to pay for the room. Between a view of the sea, the green countryside or the city, most would have paid the most expensive to have a sea view.

References

James P, Hart JE, Banay RF, Laden F. Exposure to Greenness and Mortality in a Nationwide Prospective Cohort Study of Women. Environ Health Perspect. 2016 Apr 14.

Voss JD, Allison DB, Webber BJ, Otto JL, Clark LL.. Lower Obesity Rate during Residence at High Altitude among a Military Population with Frequent Migration: A Quasi Experimental

Model for Investigating Spatial Causation. PLoS One. 2014 Apr 16;9(4):e93493. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0093493. eCollection 2014.

Rook Graham A.W., Raison Charles L, Lowry Christopher. Microbial “Old Friends”, immunoregulation and socio-economic status. Clin Exp Immunol. 2014 Jan 9. doi: 10.1111/cei.12269.

Jeff Watters, Fred Tyson, Paul Sandifer, Margaret Leinen (modératrice) et Lora Fleming.The Changing Ocean and Impacts on Human Health. AGU science policy conference. 26 juin 2013.

Sea, mountain, countryside: where to live to be healthy
Nutrition and Innovation

Agricultural yields are higher with polyculture than with monoculture.

While modern agriculture promotes monoculture on the same plot, French researchers from the Centre for functional and evolutionary ecology (CEFE-CNRS/Université de Montpellier) and Inra from Lusignan have just shown that the polycultures have a better yield than monoculture, especially in drought conditions. The results are published in the journal Nature Plants.

The study, which lasted a year and a half, focused on 5 forage plants, with monoculture plots and others associating the 5 plants. The genetic diversity was also varied by the researchers. Some plots have been irrigated and others weren’t irrigated, to check the behavior of plants in a drought situation.

In irrigation, the yield of mixed-plant plots was greater than the monoculture plants of 200 grams per m2, or 2 tons per hectare. In a drought situation, the difference has been increased to 8 tons per hectare. The yield of plots containing ten different genotypes of the same species was more stable than those with a single genotype.

This study suggests that biodiversity, such as permaculture practice, is more interesting to improve yields than the current model.

The principles of permaculture validated by a scientific study
Nutrition and Innovation