Public Release: 2-Aug-2017
Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
Key Takeaways:
- Human-caused carbon dioxide emissions lower the nutritional value of staple crops, increasing the risk for dietary deficiencies among the world’s most vulnerable people.
- This study provides further evidence for the need to curb human-caused CO2 emissions.
Boston, MA – If CO2 levels continue to rise as projected, the populations of 18 countries may lose more than 5% of their dietary protein by 2050 due to a decline in the nutritional value of rice, wheat, and other staple crops, according to new findings from Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Researchers estimate that roughly an additional 150 million people may be placed at risk of protein deficiency because of elevated levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is the first study to quantify this risk.
“This study highlights the need for countries that are most at risk to actively monitor their populations’ nutritional sufficiency, and, more fundamentally, the need for countries to curb human-caused CO2 emissions,” said Samuel Myers, senior research scientist in the Department of Environmental Health.
The study will be published online August 2, 2017 in Environmental Health Perspectives.
Globally, 76% of the population derives most of their daily protein from plants. To estimate their current and future risk of protein deficiency, the researchers combined data from experiments in which crops were exposed to high concentrations of CO2 with global dietary information from the United Nations and measures of income inequality and demographics.
They found that under elevated CO2 concentrations, the protein contents of rice, wheat, barley, and potatoes decreased by 7.6%, 7.8%, 14.1%, and 6.4%, respectively. The results suggested continuing challenges for Sub Saharan Africa, where millions already experience protein deficiency, and growing challenges for South Asian countries, including India, where rice and wheat supply a large portion of daily protein. The researchers found that India may lose 5.3% of protein from a standard diet, putting a predicted 53 million people at new risk of protein deficiency.
A companion paper co-authored by Myers, which will be published as an Early View article August 2, 2017 in GeoHealth, found that CO2-related reductions in iron content in staple food crops are likely to also exacerbate the already significant problem of iron deficiency worldwide. Those most at risk include 354 million children under 5 and 1.06 billion women of childbearing age–predominantly in South Asia and North Africa–who live in countries already experiencing high rates of anemia and who are expected to lose more than 3.8% of dietary iron as a result of this CO2 effect.
These two studies, taken alongside a 2015 study co-authored by Myers showing that elevated CO2 emissions are also likely to drive roughly 200 million people into zinc deficiency, quantify the significant nutritional toll expected to arise from human-caused CO2 emissions.
“Strategies to maintain adequate diets need to focus on the most vulnerable countries and populations, and thought must be given to reducing vulnerability to nutrient deficiencies through supporting more diverse and nutritious diets, enriching the nutritional content of staple crops, and breeding crops less sensitive to these CO2 effects. And, of course, we need to dramatically reduce global CO2 emissions as quickly as possible,” Myers said.
###
Funding for the study was provided by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and by the Winslow Foundation.
“Estimated Effects of Future Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations on Protein Intake and the Risk of Protein Deficiency by Country and Region,” Danielle E. Medek, Joel Schwartz, and Samuel S. Myers, Environmental Health Perspectives, online August 2, 2017, doi: 10.1289/EHP41
“Potential rise in iron deficiency due to future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions,” M. R. Smith, C. D. Golden, and S. S. Myers, GeoHealth, Early View article, August 2, 2017, doi: 10.1002/2016GH000018
Visit the Harvard Chan School website for the latest news, press releases, and multimedia offerings.
Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health brings together dedicated experts from many disciplines to educate new generations of global health leaders and produce powerful ideas that improve the lives and health of people everywhere. As a community of leading scientists, educators, and students, we work together to take innovative ideas from the laboratory to people’s lives–not only making scientific breakthroughs, but also working to change individual behaviors, public policies, and health care practices. Each year, more than 400 faculty members at Harvard Chan School teach 1,000-plus full-time students from around the world and train thousands more through online and executive education courses. Founded in 1913 as the Harvard-MIT School of Health Officers, the School is recognized as America’s oldest professional training program in public health.
Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I just skimmed through the paper…
The paper isn’t terribly clear about quantifying “the CO2 concentrations predicted in the next 50 y.”
If I’m reading it correctly, they are using 500-700 ppm CO2…
Sounds like a standard RCP 8.5 fraud.
A friend of mine on the Central Coast grows stuff in greenhouses using enhanced CO2.
He get his produce analysed regularly. No protein drop noticed, but then, he knows what he is doing with other fertilisers as well as the CO2.
Exactly. It’s another non-problem that wouldn’t occur as long as farmers are given the freedom to farm and consumers are given the freedom to choose what they eat.
But enviro-jobs, and global-warmers in particular, actually want to make it as difficult as possible for humans to optimise their living conditions through free choice and adaptation. This is another case of them identifying one of the clear benefits of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide, and then twisting it to try and make out that it is a bad thing. In fact, bad things that happen would actually be largely the result of ‘green’ intererence in the lives of people just trying their best to improve their lot.
All you need to do is consider the source.
Anything is possible, including cherry picked results, experiments deliberately set up to get the result they claim, fraudulent data collection, etc.
These people live and breathe to prove CO2 is the devil gas, and have also amply proven that they have no compunctions when it comes to lying in order to do so.
Plants evolved and lived for hundreds of millions of years under CO2 far higher than now, and even higher than these studies purported to use.
And all of the animals in existence thrived and multiplied right along with them.
This crap is along the same lines as the stories in which they breathlessly tell of how global warming will destroy food production and starve the world, even as food production is still steadily rising by every possible metric: Acres in production, yield per acre, yield per person…you name it, it is up up up.
The most obvious proof of the ridiculousness of this “study” is the average health and weight of the people of the world.
Rather than starving, as the panic clowns have warned for decades, the population of the world grows ever healthier, and the biggest nutrition related problem in the world is exploding rates of obesity. It is now spreading in even the relatively poor and undeveloped countries.
And then there is the issue of famine.
For my entire life, famines were a regular occurrence.
There was almost always some crushing famine on one place or another.
The Sahel alone had one every few years.
My entire life, except for the past ten years or more that is.
Famines have now become almost unheard of, and the problems that do occur have had little if anything to do with the nutritional value of crops. Mostly it is politics that cause it.
Diverting 40% of the entire US corn crop to motor fuel sure is not helping to feed the world.
I wonder if any of these geniuses have any plan to study the effect of ethanol and biofuel mandates on food production, prices, and availability among the most vulnerable populations.
Somehow they have overlooked that little matter.
Golly.
Almost like they have an agenda, or something.
Almost like they have the most nakedly transparent agenda in the history of agendas.
As far as I can tell, the principle area of expertise of these grant whores is an astounding ability to tell one particular side of a very narrowly cleaved story. The notions of nuance, a balanced and unbiased point of view, of looking at and reporting on a whole story ( in other words, of telling the truth…the whole truth), are as unlikely to them as a triple bacon pulled pork sammich at a Muslim PETA convention.
Imagine a return to a world where scientific organizations like this added to the sum total of human knowledge, instead of erasing it in huge swaths.
Let them eat cake.
Pastry flour is only 8% protein.
But cake has eggs, and milk, that’s nutrition. Thank you Mr Cosby.
And sugar.
CTM: You should follow AW’s practice of putting “Claim:” before reporting on warmist claims like “Millions may face protein deficiency …”
Reply: I posted an article. I understand what you’re saying. I got my own style. Have you noticed the new category for stories such as this: PEOPLE WILL DIE! ~ctm
Oh lordy, climate change is increasing obesity- Looks like we are all going to die of fat before 2100.
WHO | Obesity and overweight – World Health Organization
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/
Worldwide obesity has more than doubled since 1980.
World Obesity Federation | Home
http://www.worldobesity.org/
Altogether, the researchers estimated that a high body weight contributed to 4 million deaths globally
What’s the score vs. starvation?
Personally, I can not recall a single recent famine.
The last one i remember was the one in Somalia, which, after we sent our military in to make sure that the massive aid sent was not stolen by the ruling kleptocracies, ended up with the events detailed in Black hawk Down. (How many recalled that the reason we were there was to feed a starving population of what turned out to be the most spectacularly ungrateful people to even inhabit the planet which, BTW, fattened up in seemingly record time?)
Possibly there were some after that, but I cannot remember any off the top of my head.
“…to EVER inhabit the planet…”
“……..Human-caused carbon dioxide emissions lower the nutritional value of staple crops, increasing the risk for dietary deficiencies among the world’s most vulnerable people……”
So CO2 from natural sources doesn’t produce this problem in crop plants, correct? Only human-sourced CO2 does this. How do the crop plants know the difference? If they mean that nutrient levels decline with atmospheric CO2 increases from ALL sources, it might make more sense. Why is the B.S. detector in my head sounding off?
“http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/Global-warming-insects.html#.WYOR51GQy70”
so “increased crop yields means more insects means we die” has turned to “increased crop yields mean more insects AND less protein means we die”
time to redraw my algorithm
1972 Club of Rome: run out of resources, mass starvation. Check: population doubled and there are much fewer hungry and in poverty. Reserves of major metals has greatly increased and real prices have declined. Food crops have much more than doubled using lower acreage and famines are minor short lived crises. We even burn millions of tonnes of corn for fuel (embarrassed to admit that.)
Current prediction: people will die off in the millions because of protein reduction in grains. Check: GMO will double up the protein in food crops, but the stable pooulation of 9billion (85% already there today) will prefer beef steak with fried onions and craft ales.
This prediction is from a model based on observations, and is 97% certain, although the fried onions have a fifty%chance of being switched to mushrooms.
I think the odds are more like 33% Fried Onions, 33% Mushrooms, 33% grilled onions and mushrooms (my fav)
You left out the part where they studied the nutritional content of GMO crops and urged the world to end the insane and irrational opposition to them.
Oh, wait…they never studied that or made any such recommendation, did they?
Gosh, wonder how they let that one slip by their uncannily acute attention to The Big Picture?
This report smells at all levels. On one level, this is just another example of research in search of a problem. Instinctually, this project falls in the same category as the crab-running-on-a-treadmill project. Neither the crab nor this project is going anywhere. Apparently, too much funding is available, and not enough projects are out there that warrant funding.
It looks like almost a dead ringer in methodology to the coral killing experiments that use volcanic vent locales to determine what happens when CO2 levels go to ridiculous levels, except this doesn’t even show any real impact on grains. Just imaginary!
When someone comes to me with something this tendentious and twisted, I can’t help but consider them a liar.
Others have already pointed out the *glaring*, ULCC-sized flaws in this.
as a warmist grows from infant to adolt, his ratio of brain cells to fat plummets.
call me moronophobic. i’ve looked all over the ark and can’t find a single fok
I would rather be protein deficient than starving to death
Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on your point of view (are you a fashion model?), you stand a far higher chance of morbid obesity than kwashiorkor.
The protein lost through not being allowed to eat meat – because that causes global warming too – will be a far more likely source of dietary protein deficiency. It’ll be the scientists/activists/politicians that harm us more than the climate.
Only for people who lack a normal and healthy appreciation of eating insects.
I think a nice buttering of fresh maggot paste will fix that protein deficient bread right up.
From the introduction to the article …
Under the CO2 concentrations predicted in the next 50 y, crops with C3 photosynthesis, such as rice and wheat, may experience up to 15% decreases in grain protein content (Myers et al. 2014).
https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/ehp41/
From Meyers et al 2014 …
Here we report that C3 grains and legumes have lower concentrations of zinc and iron when grown under field conditions at the elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration predicted for the middle of this century. C3 crops other than legumes also have lower concentrations of protein, whereas C4 crops seem to be less affected. Differences between cultivars of a single crop suggest that breeding for decreased sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 concentration could partly address these new challenges to global health.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v510/n7503/full/nature13179.html?foxtrotcallback=true
(My bold)
No mention of increased productivity under increased CO2.
Junk science. We have been measuring protein content in foods for the past >40 years when CO2 went from 330 ppm to 410 ppm. Where is the evidence that this increase has actually reduced the protein content of crops? It is nonexistent. Zero evidence. There is no real basis for those predictions. This paper should have been flat out rejected by any decent journal.
Repeated comments suggest just adding more nitrogen fertilizer as CO2 rises. Although this sounds logical it seems this strategy will produce more effect on plant bio-mass than grain protein.
A recent (2017) Australian study looked at the difference between no nitrogen fertilization & 100 Kg nitrogen/hectare fertilization for a wheat variety. They compared these nitrogen levels for 390 CO2 & 550 CO2.
Results were that under 390 CO2 100 Kg N/hectare wheat grain protein went up 37% (from non N fertlization), whereas under 550 CO2 that 100 Kg N/hectare wheat grain protein went up 28% (from non nitrogen fertilization). In field crops there are issues with high rates of nitrogen fertilizer application rates that have to be managed.
With more carbon, you also need more N. They held the amount the same under both the high and low C02 concentrations.
Yes, they did. The question is how much extra nitrogen fertilization is practical to add in field grown crops (like wheat) without provoking undesirable side effects of high dose nitrogen fertilization. In greenhouse grown plants is more “doable” to mitigate nitrogen leaching’s downstream, so to speak, impact.
Gringo,
You’d have to go way above that level to have any problems.
My county grows more wheat than any in the US, mostly soft white winter (like Oz). We put on a base amount, then, if the winter has been wet, a top dressing in the spring. Maybe drier Australia is different, but we have never been in danger of burning a crop with too much N.
We used to practice a pea-wheat rotation, but the pea market has gone to hell, so most ranchers no longer grow peas, but some still do beans. In either case, less N is required the year after the legume crop.
I have however seen tomato growers reduce their yield by laying on too much steer manure.
Let that be a warning to spreaders of CACA BS!
There are interactions in terms of optimal nitrogen depending on rainfall. If wheat is not irrigated & consider only nitrogen then gram weight/1000 grains of wheat shows minimal benefit of ramping up nitrogen.
A (2014) recent experiment reported that just nitrogen applied 1/3 when sowing, 1/3 at day 35 & 1/3 at day 65 at the total amount of 80Kg/hectare 1,000 grains of wheat weighed 43.5gr., at 100 Kg nitrogen/hectare 1,000 grains weighed 44.58gr & at 120 Kg nitrogen/hectare 1,000 grains of wheat weighed 44.83. Authors concluded 100Kg nitrogen/hectare was adequate if no irrigation occurs.
At 120Kg nitrogen/hectare straw wheat straw weight was 4.97 tons/hectare & 4.87 tobs/hectare at 100Kg nitrogen/hectare. As I mentioned initially I think increasing nitrogen has more effect on biomass than seeds.
By the way once they gave the wheat 200mm of water then the team determined 120 Kg nitrogen/hectare was ideal for yield . I incidentally there was more grams per 1000 grains at 200mm than 300mm.
Now this was not a CO2 experiment to be precise, but it did measure nitrogen fertilization in the range I earlier highlighted (100Kg/ha). My point is not that CO2 rising is terrible for crops, more that assuming additional nitrogen fertilizer is going to be a simple strategy.
Gringo,
That more CO2 means less need for water, but more for N is in fact simple.
But you rightly draw attention to the details of optimum fertilization.
Here in the Pacific NW, where the miracle strains of wheat have been bred the better to take advantage of chemical fertilizers, data are available for every possible parameter of water (dry land or irrigated), N, CO2, phosphates, etc.
The most important factor is simply to grow more wheat.
Protein content affects the price, but more is always better.
Here are the sites where the strains of wheat which have fed a world growing from two to eight billion have been developed:
http://cbarc.aes.oregonstate.edu/
Part of the year, I live about ten miles from the Pendleton station and was born five miles from it.
Adjusting the fertilizer mix just right is a trivial function, compared to breeding the miracle strains of wheat created here.
Wheat grown in field sectors with the soil capability to yield well currently (not at elevated CO2) seem to give the farmer the combination of ideal return on their investment in fertilizer & labor related to it’s usage plus the least trade-off for undesirable consequences like nitrate leaching into the environment when fertilzed at the rate of 90 Kg nitrogen/hectare. As per 2011 “The strategic and tactical management approach to select optimal N fertilizer rates for wheat in a spatially variable field”.
Having to dose with more nitrogen under elevated CO2 without getting more environmental side effects will challenge farmers without access to the technical scientific personel you mentioned. The cited research apparently has “adjusted” the nitrogen trade off for now & I have
not seen anyone detail the trade off one would need under elevated CO2.
Bear in mind that although top-dressing nitrogen fertilization using products like urea & ammonium nitrate give higher yields many farmers in developing countries are operating on tight budgets & use anhydrous ammonia as a pre-planting product. This is because of the cost savings is enough to trade off for yield & if their heirs are farming under elevated CO2 could end up using more resulting in more leaching.
Gringo,
There is zero downside to more plant nutrient in the air.
Higher yields from more CO2 are always a good thing. Even if Third World farmers don’t up their N fertilization, they’re still bucks up from more CO2. Maybe the grade of their wheat falls, but they have so much more of it that it’s a win for them.
As Javier notes above, there is in the real world no evidence that the share of protein in wheat actually has fallen as a result of more CO2 in the air. New varieties of wheat, such as those developed down the road from me, are bred to make best use of fertilizer.
“80Kg/hectare 1,000 grains of wheat weighed 43.5gr., at 100 Kg nitrogen/hectare 1,000 grains weighed 44.58gr & at 120 Kg nitrogen/hectare 1,000 grains of wheat weighed 44.83. Authors concluded 100Kg nitrogen/hectare was adequate if no irrigation occurs.”
This metric is simply measuring tiny changes in the weight of individual wheat grains.
It says absolutely nothing about total yield per acre or anything else…just the size of the seeds.
And one study proves nothing. Not in any science, anywhere, ever.
The implication that the size of the grains is tied in any meaningful way to overall yield or nutritional content is a glaring signal of either disingenuous misinformation, or simply not thinking about what is actually being shown by the data.
This article is not about the mass of a single seed of wheat, and I have never seen any indication that the size of the grains correlates with yield or nutritional profile.
The fact is the protein content of every crop of wheat and every other food varies continuously, and always has and always will, and does so for numerous reasons.
Varying one factor, like water, or fertilizer, or the timing of application, or CO2 content, and then drawing sweeping conclusions between experiments which measured some certain response to varying one parameter to another experiment which measures some other response to varying another parameter, without specifically stating the values of every parameter in each of the trials, is unscientific doubletalk.
Comparisons of variations are only valid when all else is held the same.
And multiple trials involving crops over multiple growing seasons “without irrigation”, seems to assume that rainfall rates are uniform from place to place and year to year.
The opposite is true…there is no such uniformity, except by rare random chance.
Besides all of that, there are a million ways to invalidate such findings, any sort of poor methodology, small sample size, bad data collection practices, outright fudging or fraud…
Without knowing any details, such assertions are meaningless on too many levels to even list.
This study is proof positive that CO2 can accomplish anything, in greenhouses it accelerates growth in all types of plants but in the wild it retards protein and increases the probability of gaining access to government money.
Wheat protein is called: GLUTEN. Oh no!
Lower gluten in the wheat should make some happy.
/SRK
Now that is funny.
Agriculture System defines the human health in any given period. For example in the traditional agricultural system, animal husbandry was part of farming. Also pulses and cereals were part of the farming system. They helped nitrogen fixing. This not only provided economic security but also nutrient security. The chemical input mono-crop technology changed the nutrient security to a minimum with chemicals in the food. In addition adulterated food and food produced under polluted conditions changed the health scenario of modern people. They may further increase in future under globalization scenarios.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
I seem to remember hearing that a lot of nutrients are removed by food processing. They seem to have ignored this step in the process of bringing food to our table. I would think the food processing itself could be changed to produce at least an equal amount of nutrients.
Especially apropos when the nutrients removed are certain proteins, ie glutens.
This fake news is not the only way by which CACA adherents try to counter the fertilizing effect of more CO2 in the air.
The other is to assert that higher CO2 helps weeds more than crops. But the answer to that is more fossil fuel-based pesticides and more petroleum products to rod the weeds. There is no downside for agriculture and human nutrition to more plant nutrient in the air.
So has the sky fallen yet? Just askin’.
It may be possible to untangle this mess when real disasters and problems start to raise their heads. I expect to see that happening before long.
It has been my experience, sadly, that when some of the four horsemen show up, real problems come into focus, and the illusory ones disappear.
Well, when that happens, Otsar, think of the chaos in the streets! The hand-wringing! The weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth while the howler monkeys are thrown into chaos, and the rest of us go on about our business away from the Crises in the Big Cities, because we saw the silliness coming ahead of time.
Sometimes, I think these weasels want a massive disaster to happen because they think they’ll be Those Who Survived It. Wrong. They are completely dependent on external sources for everything. The rest of us can manage without the cities. If we’re lucky, the They will isolate themselves from us in a crisis and suffer massive losses, while the rest of us will be doing quite well.
Soylent Green is made of people. Sirloin steak is made of cows. 🙂 Just sayin’.
A while back I spent some time in Venezuela. It was at the beginning of their journey into chaos. Where it will end, who knows. The only thing good about the place was their dark Polar beer.
This is obvious junk. The shamelessness of these ‘researchers’ clearly is without bound.
Wonder what the percentages of the increased CO2 concentrations used in the studies were. And I assume these studies included control groups that did not have increased CO2 concentrations.
CO2 is the problem. right? And the people who view it as The Problem are the loudest shouters about it, right?
Fine. I have a solution, a very, very simple solution. First, they get their mouths sewn shut, because they are probably all mouthbreathers, which means they exhale more C02 than the rest of us. Next, they don’t want to eat meat, so give them kale and chard and all the veggies none of the rest of us like. Third, transport them all to a modest-sized island with no shipping lanes nearby, and then leave.
If they haven’t eaten each other within 10 years, I’ll be surprised, but the CO2 problem will have been solved.
I despair at the utter hypocrisy and sheer stupidity of these morons. They have cherry picked this otherwise genuine research for their own agenda. I am a recently retired grain producer near Horsham Victoria Australia where some of this research was carried out. The results were similarly publicised here, most likely decided by an international consortium of money hungry scientists wanting to continue their lifestyles.
What they didn’t want anyone to focus on was that the FACE project demonstrated a massive overall increase in yields and most importantly the substantial (huge) increase in net protein produced per sq metre/acre/hectare. They simply hate this equation, problem is you only need basic maths to work it out for yourself and show the falsehood these people heap on society. Have always loved the science of plant breeding and the effects the elements and rotations with legumes has on production outcomes. I have had many years of mingling with genuine researchers but regrettably few honest ones still practice (all retired or died). The morons we have left are all running an agenda that guarantees their cushy existence. Hence we see junk science ad nauseam. This selective publication of the results reflects poorly on an industry that had a once proud history in Australia of being open, fair and comprehensive in the publication of its research. I can no longer respect science or scientists per sae.