Virulotyping and antimicrobial resistance typing of salmonella enterica serovars relevant to human health in Europe

The combination of virulence gene and antimicrobial resistance gene typing using DNA arrays is a recently developed genomics-based approach to bacterial molecular epidemiology. We have now applied this technology to 523 Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica strains collected from various host sources and public health and veterinary institutes across nine European countries. The strain set included the five predominant Salmonella serovars isolated in Europe (Enteritidis, Typhimurium, Infantis, Virchow, and Hadar). Initially, these strains were screened for 10 potential virulence factors (avrA, ssaQ, mgtC, siiD, sopB, gipA, sodC1, sopE1, spvC, and bcfC) by polymerase chain reaction. The results indicated that only 14 profiles comprising these genes (virulotypes) were observed throughout Europe. Moreover, most of these virulotypes were restricted to only one (n = 9) or two (n = 4) serovars. The data also indicated that the virulotype did not vary significantly with host source or geographical location. Subsequently, a representative subset of 77 strains was investigated using a microarray designed to detect 102 virulence and 49 resistance determinants. The results confirmed and extended the previous observations using the virulo-polymerase chain reaction screen. Strains belonging to the same serovar grouped together, indicating that the broader virulence-associated gene complement corresponded with the serovar. There were, however, some differences in the virulence gene profiles between strains belonging to an individual serovar. This variation occurred primarily within those virulence genes that were prophage encoded, in fimbrial clusters or in the virulence plasmid. It seems likely that such changes enable Salmonella to adapt to different environmental conditions, which might be reflected in serovar-specific ecology. In this strain subset a number of resistance genes were detected and were serovar restricted to a varying degree. Once again the profiles of those genes encoding resistance were similar or the same for each serovar in all hosts and countries investigated.

Biodiversity, cultural pathways, and human health: a framework

Direct contact with biodiversity is culturally important in a range of contexts. Many people even join conservation organisations to protect biodiversity that they will never encounter first-hand. Despite this, we have little idea how biodiversity affects people's well-being and health through these cultural pathways. Human health is sensitive to apparently trivial psychological stimuli, negatively affected by the risk of environmental degradation, and positively affected by contact with natural spaces. This suggests that well-being and health should be affected by biodiversity change, but few studies have begun to explore these relationships. Here, we develop a framework for linking biodiversity change with human cultural values, well-being, and health. We argue that better understanding these relations might be profoundly important for biodiversity conservation and public health.

Soil, food security and human health: a review

Direct effects of soil or its constituents on human health are through its ingestion, inhalation or absorption. The soil contains many infectious organisms that may enter the human body through these pathways, but it also provides organisms on which our earliest antibiotics are based. Indirect effects of soil arise from the quantity and quality of food that humans consume. Trace elements can have both beneficial and toxic effects on humans, especially where the range for optimal intake is narrow. We focus on four trace elements (iodine, iron, selenium and zinc) whose deficiencies have substantial effects on human health. As the world’s population increases issues of food security become more pressing, as does the need to sustain soil fertility and minimize its degradation. Lack of adequate food and food of poor nutritional quality lead to differing degrees of under-nutrition, which in turn causes ill health. Soil and land are finite resources and agricultural land is under severe competition from other uses. Relationships between soil and health are often difficult to extricate because of the many confounding factors present. Nevertheless, recent scientific understanding of soil processes and factors that affect human health are enabling greater insight into the effects of soil on our health. Multidisciplinary research that includes soil science, agronomy, agricultural sustainability, toxicology, epidemiology and the medical sciences will facilitate the discovery of new antibiotics, a greater understanding of how materials added to soil used for food production affect health and deciphering of the complex relationships between soil and human health.

Regional projections of extreme apparent temperature days in Africa and the related potential risk to human health

Regional climate modelling was used to produce high resolution climate projections for Africa, under a “business as usual scenario”, that were translated into potential health impacts utilizing a heat index that relates apparent temperature to health impacts. The continent is projected to see increases in the number of days when health may be adversely affected by increasing maximum apparent temperatures (AT) due to climate change. Additionally, climate projections indicate that the increases in AT results in a moving of days from the less severe to the more severe Symptom Bands. The analysis of the rate of increasing temperatures assisted in identifying areas, such as the East African highlands, where health may be at increasing risk due to both large increases in the absolute number of hot days, and due to the high rate of increase. The projections described here can be used by health stakeholders in Africa to assist in the development of appropriate public health interventions to mitigate the potential health impacts from climate change.

The impact of European legislative and technology measures to reduce air pollutants on air quality, human health and climate

European air quality legislation has reduced emissions of air pollutants across Europe since the 1970s, affecting air quality, human health and regional climate. We used a coupled composition-climate model to simulate the impacts of European air quality legislation and technology measures implemented between 1970 and 2010. We contrast simulations using two emission scenarios; one with actual emissions in 2010 and the other with emissions that would have occurred in 2010 in the absence of technological improvements and end-of-pipe treatment measures in the energy, industrial and road transport sectors. European emissions of sulphur dioxide, black carbon (BC) and organic carbon in 2010 are 53%, 59% and 32% lower respectively compared to emissions that would have occurred in 2010 in the absence of legislative and technology measures. These emission reductions decreased simulated European annual mean concentrations of fine particulate matter(PM2.5) by 35%, sulphate by 44%, BC by 56% and particulate organic matter by 23%. The reduction in PM2.5 concentrations is calculated to have prevented 80 000 (37 000–116 000, at 95% confidence intervals) premature deaths annually across the European Union, resulting in a perceived financial benefit to society of US$232 billion annually (1.4% of 2010 EU GDP). The reduction in aerosol concentrations due to legislative and technology measures caused a positive change in the aerosol radiative effect at the top of atmosphere, reduced atmospheric absorption and also increased the amount of solar radiation incident at the surface over Europe. We used an energy budget approximation to estimate that these changes in the radiative balance have increased European annual mean surface temperatures and precipitation by 0.45 ± 0.11 °C and by 13 ± 0.8 mm yr−1 respectively. Our results show that the implementation of European legislation and technological improvements to reduce the emission of air pollutants has improved air quality and human health over Europe, as well as having an unintended impact on the regional radiative balance and climate.

Increasing consumption of ultra-processed foods and likely impact on human health: evidence from Brazil

Objective: To assess time trends in the contribution of processed foods to food purchases made by Brazilian households and to explore the potential impact on the overall quality of the diet. Design: Application of a new classification of foodstuffs based on extent and purpose of food processing to data collected by comparable probabilistic household budget surveys. The classification assigns foodstuffs to the following groups: unprocessed/minimally processed foods (Group 1); processed culinary ingredients (Group 2); or ultra-processed ready-to-eat or ready-to-heat food products (Group 3). Setting: Eleven metropolitan areas of Brazil. Subjects: Households; n 13 611 in 1987-8, n 16 014 in 1995-5 and n 13 848 in 2002-3. Results: Over the last three decades, the household consumption of Group 1 and Group 2 foods has been steadily replaced by consumption of Group 3 ultra-processed food products, both overall and in lower- and upper-income groups. In the 2002-3 survey, Group 3 items represented more than one-quarter of total energy (more than one-third for higher-income households). The overall nutrient profile of Group 3 items, compared with that of Group 1 and Group 2 items, revealed more added sugar, more saturated fat, more sodium, less fibre and much higher energy density. Conclusions: The high energy density and the unfavourable nutrition profiling of Group 3 food products, and also their potential harmful effects on eating and drinking behaviours, indicate that governments and health authorities should use all possible methods, including legislation and statutory regulation, to halt and reverse the replacement of minimally processed foods and processed culinary ingredients by ultra-processed food products.

Human carrying capacity and human health

The silence around overpopulation prevents the global health community from making the necessary link between the planner's limited ability to support its people and health and development crises. The author describes how popular thinking on population control has been shaped over the last 200 years and how out failure to address the population explosion may be one cause of recent epidemics and social unrest.

Human health, well-being and global ecological scenarios

This article categorizes four kinds of adverse effects to human health caused by ecosystem change: direct, mediated, modulated, and systems failure. The effects are categorized on their scale, complexity, and lag-time. Some but not all of these can be classified as resulting from reduced ecosystem services. The articles also explores the impacts that different socioeconomic–ecologic scenarios are likely to have on human health and how changes to human health may, in turn, influence the unfolding of four different plausible future scenarios. We provide examples to show that our categorization is a useful taxonomy for understanding the complex relationships between ecosystems and human well-being and for predicting how future ecosystem changes may affect human health.

Human carrying capacity and human health

The issue of human overpopulation has fallen out of favor among most contemporary demographers, economists, and epidemiologists. Discussing population control has become a taboo topic. Yet, this taboo has major implications for public health.

The silence around overpopulation prevents the global health community from making the necessary link between the planet's limited ability to support its people (its carrying capacity—see sidebar on following page) and health and development crises. In this article, I describe how popular thinking on population control has been shaped over the last 200 years, and how our failure to address the population explosion may be one cause of recent epidemics and social unrest.

Climate change and human health: what can GPs do?

In recent months articles in the most respected peer reviewed medical journals in Australia, the USA and Britain have called for urgent action to reduce climate change.1–4 The chief scientist of the United Kingdom has described climate change as ‘the most severe problem that we are facing today – more serious even than the threat of terrorism’.5 Yet, many of you will wonder if this is really such an urgent issue, and – even if it is – what on earth has it got to do with general practice?