By Natasha Spencer-Jolliffe* Risks for Inflammation in Human Organs Still Unknown In a scientific first, researchers have found microplastics in human blood. A recent study reveals that tiny plastic particles can travel within the body via the circulatory system. The study by researchers from the Department of Environment and Health at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam and Amsterdam University Medical Center detected tiny pieces of plastic in 77% of participants tested. This is "the first real-world evidence that plastic particles are absorbed in the human bloodstream," says Dr. Heather Leslie, lead author of the study. The new study is an important addition to the growing body of research that finds microplastics in various human organs, tissues, blood, and waste matter. Additional research seeks to answer many more questions—especially about human health risks—associated with these man-made materials. Earlier Studies Prompted Blood Research Previous research studies identified the presence of microplastics in the placenta and in feces. (Following the discovery of microplastics in human blood, another research team found them in deep lung tissue). "We were aware that microplastics had been found in human stool, so we hypothesized that they could have crossed barriers and be found in the blood," says Dr. Juan J. Garcia-Vallejo, co-author of the study and associate professor at the Department of Molecular Cell Biology & Immunology, Amsterdam University Medical Center. In addition, a research study found that infant exposure to microplastics from consuming formula—prepared in polypropylene infant feeding bottles—was higher than previously recognized. The researchers stated that the study’s results highlighted an "urgent need" to assess whether exposure to microplastics at the levels found in the study—as high as 16,200,000 particles per liter—is a risk factor for infant health. Discovering Microplastics in Human Blood "What we didn’t know beforehand was if the plastic dust we see in our indoor environment, air, water and food chain gets absorbed into the human bloodstream in amounts that are detectable with our current technology," says Leslie. The Amsterdam researchers developed a robust and sensitive analytical method to measure plastic particles. That technique would then be applied to measuring the presence of plastic particles with dimensions of 700 nanometers and up in the blood of healthy human volunteers. Quality control and validation of their analytical techniques were of particular importance to the researchers. To identify and quantify the levels of microplastics in the blood, the researchers used their analytical techniques to measure the quantities in the participants’ blood of five specific polymers commonly used in high volume plastic production: polyethylene terephthalate, polyethylene and polymers of styrene, poly (methyl methacrylate), and polypropylene. Four of the five polymers were detected in some of the human blood samples, with only polypropylene levels being below the limits of detection of the researchers’ techniques. "When we got the first data in, we were shocked, even though it validated our hypothesis." "We went from expecting there to be microplastic in human blood to knowing it is there," says Leslie. "When we got the first data in, we were shocked, even though it validated our hypothesis," adds Garcia-Vallejo. The results of the research project, called Immunoplast, were published in the scientific journal Environment International. The research program strives to gain more insight into the potential health implications of plastic particulates and actions that can be taken to limit their possible harmful effects. The Amsterdam researchers recommended further studies to ascertain the health implications of microplastic accumulation in human bodies and whether plastic particle exposure is a public health risk. Exposure to Microplastics Unavoidable Microplastics originate from all items made from plastic. As these items wear down during use or at the product’s end of life, plastic fragments are released into the environment. Once released, they "start a big journey waltzing in and out of living beings pretty much unscathed, back into the air and water and earth again," Leslie notes. According to Garcia-Vallejo, exposure to microplastics through food or drink is the most likely route of entry into humans. Leslie emphasized that plastic, either inhaled with air or ingested with food and water, has a gigantic number of potential sources. That is because plastic pollution is ubiquitous, and tiny shreds of plastic can usually be detected in processed food, vegetables, meat, tap water and bottled beverages. Vast amounts of consumable foods come in contact with plastic packaging. "We are most concerned about the fine particles that get absorbed, enter the bloodstream, and from there travel to all parts of the body to be deposited in organs and tissues where they can potentially cause inflammation and toxic effects." Plastic particles in the body can end up in the toilet if they are too big to be absorbed in the lungs or gut. "That is why we are most concerned about the fine particles that get absorbed, enter the bloodstream, and from there travel to all parts of the body to be deposited in organs and tissues where they can potentially cause inflammation and toxic effects," says Leslie. "The microplastics made today won’t fully degrade for several more generations, so in that sense, I see them as our message to the future: We used a lot of plastic that was incompatible with ecosystems, and we had a hard time figuring out what to do about it," Leslie adds. Microplastics and Human Health Regarding the implications that microplastics in the bloodstream have for human health, Leslie explains, "the risk to human health arises when the exposure reaches levels that toxicity starts to kick in." The study showed exposure levels in a small group of humans. Research is ongoing to determine the plastic in blood levels in larger samples of the human population. More donors need to be measured to get a better idea of the distribution of plastic among the population, Leslie shares. "It is not just about more toxicity research, but also we need to establish the exposure levels in a lot more humans before we can extrapolate to say a human population as a whole," Leslie continues. There are also currently ongoing European projects designed to determine the threshold levels for toxicity. "What we do know already comes from the field of particle and fiber toxicology," says Leslie. Some particles or fibers can elicit toxicity, which starts with oxidative stress and inflammatory response. "Chronic inflammation is considered a prelude to many chronic diseases," says Leslie. "We need to figure out if plastic particles cause these kinds of inflammations," explains Leslie. "My question is, how different is the toxicity of plastic particles from other particles that we know cause human health issues, such as particulates in air pollution?" Leslie asks. Much of the past research into the toxicity of chemical additives that leach out of plastic has shown that exposure to them can lead to endocrine disruptive effects in humans, she says. However, the human health effects of plastic particles themselves are a nascent research field. At the moment, researchers know more about the toxicity of chemicals that leach out of plastic materials, Leslie confirms. "Microplastic might be toxic because of the additives, the particle getting caught up in biological processes, or a combination of the two," Leslie details. Plastic can also exert what is called particle and fiber toxicity. Limiting Exposure to Microplastics The question of what can people do to limit their exposure to microplastics—in terms of it entering their bodies—is "very difficult," says Garcia-Vallejo. "We need to act on limiting plastic pollution in the environment so that the exposure decreases," he says. People can best use their voice, become politically active, support civil society groups tackling plastic pollution, talk to their elected representatives, and sign petitions and letters. "In other words, don’t keep it to yourself!" says Leslie. "Also, think before you purchase something if you want it, need it, and if it needs to be plastic, or if there is another solution to the product’s function," adds Leslie. Furthermore, design signals intention. "Whenever people design a product, if there is an intention to design plastic pollution out of the product, everything changes," says Leslie. "People making decisions at work about product design or procurement can make a larger scale difference than you or me searching for a supermarket that doesn’t wrap cucumbers in plastic," Leslie continues. Removing Microplastics from the Body Currently, there are no known protocols to remove microplastics from the human body. Still, researchers are confident ways will be found to heal humanity from pollution damage. "Never underestimate the power of human intention and ingenuity," says Leslie. "We can easily share this planet with 8 billion people without trashing it; it is just difficult for most adults to imagine it," she adds. *Natasha Spencer-Jolliffe is a freelance journalist and editor. Over the past 10 years, Natasha has reported for a host of publications, exploring the wider world and industries from environmental, scientific, business, legal, and sociological perspectives. Natasha has also been interviewed as an insight provider for research institutes and conferences. Editorial notes Sources: Interview with Juan J. Garcia Vallejo, MD, PhD, MBA, Associate Professor, Dept. Molecular Cell Biology & Immunology, Amsterdam University Medical Center. Interview with Dr Heather Leslie, formerly Senior Researcher, Dept. of Environment and Health, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Dr Heather Leslie left the VY as of 1st March 2022.

By Natasha Spencer-Jolliffe* Faith-based Charity Brings Water Purification Systems to Remote Areas Clean, reliable drinking water for all populations remains a top international goal. As of 2020, about three-quarters of the world—5.8 billion people—had access to safe water, according to the World Health Organization. But around 500 million people are estimated to still use unpurified water taken from wells, springs, lakes, ponds, rivers, and streams. Many organizations today are working to address the global water crisis, but one—Christian non-profit Healing Waters International (HWI)—is focused on some of the neediest populations—those who live in poor, remote areas. “We know that access to clean water is a critical need and human right; it affects nutrition, cognitive ability, productivity, educational and livelihood opportunities, and social well-being,” says Hana Lokey, HWI’s senior program manager. HWI is built on the belief that everyone deserves safe water, and that includes people living in remote coastal villages in Haiti or rural mountain towns in Central America, she said. “HWI is grateful to be a part of addressing this inequity.” Founded by Two Churches HWI was born in 2002, when two churches—one in Colorado in the United States and the other in the Dominican Republic in the Caribbean—formed a non-profit partnership. The founders’ goal was to provide sustainable water treatment technologies to serve marginalized communities at a low cost. This meant pursuing the best water purification systems for challenging locations—as well as finding ways for the program to be both financially self-sustaining and viable for the long haul. HWI is also true to its missions of encouraging faith in God and educational programs wherever it goes. In its two decades, HWI has brought clean water to hundreds of thousands of people in communities in the Caribbean and Central America—and soon it will stretch to East Africa. Developing Water Purification Technology HWI started its first clean water initiatives by partnering with Dominican Republic churches serving people in urban areas and their surrounding neighborhoods. Before long, their work expanded into Mexico, Guatemala, and, most recently, Haiti, using the same collaborative, church-centered approach. Then, a decade ago, HWI switched its focus to remote, rural communities that are outside traditional water infrastructures and in severe need of help with safe water. All HWI purification systems are custom-configured to specific water source and consumption demands, but this switch to rural communities meant HWI had to build systems good enough to purify water that is brackish, tainted with arsenic or fluoride, or filled with toxins. One of HWI’s strengths is its use of a “separation membrane” in its water systems. Separation membrane technologies, such as ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis, are core parts of systems that remove contaminants from water. HWI configures a full “treatment train” around this core, installing control boxes for its reverse osmosis systems that can adjust, control, and optimize system performance for a community. For larger communities, HWI has expanded its engineering offerings to provide more robust, customizable, and larger-scale purification and pumping systems. Today, HWI has projects that are ten times larger than those the organization was working on just two years ago. Challenges One of HWI’s most notable global challenges is acceptance and buy-in from management at the local project level. “In the past, we have had projects with great leaders who have championed a water project, but after a few years, they move away or are unable to continue as the project lead. It can be a challenge then to pass the project off to another leader in the community,” Lokey explains. Changing the behavior of recipients is “always harder than the hardware element,” says Lokey. If people have always received their water directly from a natural spring or an untreated tap, it takes effort to convince them that they should drink purified water, especially if their usual water source is free, she adds. In other words, providing access to safe water (at a low cost) does not guarantee that people will take advantage of it. Another obstacle is introducing equipment that will produce safe water efficiently in communities with scant resources and few, if any, people with business or technical backgrounds to help operate it. “HWI has continued to grow into more complex and larger-scale systems but has had to continue to find ways to make this equipment understandable for local project teams to operate and maintain,” Lokey says. On the bright side, HWI finds that inviting community engagement, offering a proper business and distribution model for the local context, and providing hygiene and sanitation education that is tailored for the local recipients, can increase access, understanding and use of safe water in a community. Adaptation Has Been Key to Success HWI has learned to adapt in achieving its mission of ensuring safe water no matter where people live. For instance, several years after the non-profit began to work in the Dominican Republic, HWI realized that small water stores, which provide safe water at affordable prices, had proliferated, and most of the island’s communities now had access to clean water. HWI decided to shift its focus over the border, to the Dominican Republic’s island neighbor Haiti, and west into Central America, where Honduras had a severe need for safe water. HWI’s partnership model required adaptation, as well. HWI now partners with local leaders who are trusted by the community and have the desire and capacity to resolve their community’s water needs, Lokey says. HWI now partners with local leaders who are trusted by the community and have the desire and capacity to resolve their community’s water needs. Adaptation has further involved creating unique business plans to ensure that projects can earn enough revenue to cover operating costs. HWI’s charitable work is funded by several revenue streams, including individual donors, churches, family foundations, and partner organizations that subcontract HWI to implement WASH (Water, Sanitation and Hygiene) interventions. Its projects include some community contributions for its clean, pure water, which can be given via donations of materials or sweat equity, a form of unpaid work given by entrepreneurs or employees. In addition, the projects set aside monthly savings to cover replacement costs for equipment and materials. “Ongoing support is critical to long-term success,” Lokey says. HWI commits to ongoing support visits at no cost to the local project, so recipients are incentivized to communicate openly about issues or needs. Setting up Clean Water Systems for Future Generations Looking ahead, HWI plans for its work to take two forms. First, the organization will focus more on working at the regional level on larger-scale projects. “Larger scale in terms of implementation strategy and people served creates natural efficiencies for our team to maximize reach,” says Lokey. Second, HWI will expand its work into Nicaragua and Kenya. In addition to Honduras, these two countries have been in the organization’s sights for a while, and projects have been inaugurated there in 2022. HWI also designs and supplies systems for strategic partners, most notably its cross-Africa partner, Jibu. To support both these goals, HWI is looking into designing solar-powered purification projects. These systems often include a solar pumping component that can draw water to the purification site from more than two miles away. “With particular needs in water scarcity and exotic contaminants like arsenic or fluoride, we see a need that HWI is uniquely positioned to tackle, so we are working toward building the partnerships and local capacities in these countries,” Lokey says. *Natasha Spencer-Jolliffe is a freelance journalist and editor. Over the past 10 years, Natasha has reported for a host of publications, exploring the wider world and industries from environmental, scientific, business, legal, and sociological perspectives. Natasha has also been interviewed as an insight provider for research institutes and conferences. Sources: Interview with Hana Lokey, Senior Program Manager, Healing Waters International.

Study Shows Crucial Role for Iconic Species in Prairie Ecosystems By Natasha Spencer-Jolliffe* The iconic North American buffalo, which fell to near-extinction levels in the 1880s, is now flourishing, thanks to concerted conservation efforts. While bison have long been known as a sustainable food and income source, they are now being shown to be an essential part of a prairie ecosystem. In fact, reintroducing bison to a Great Plains tallgrass prairie ecosystem in the US nearly doubled plant diversity there, says a new study led by Kansas State University (KSU) researchers. The researchers examined the impact of bison on the abundance of native species in prairie landscapes, basing their findings on thirty years of data collected by the 3,487-hectare Konza Prairie Biological Station (KPBS) in Kansas. KPBS is jointly owned by The Nature Conservancy and KSU. Building Back the Buffalo Biome American bison herds once numbered 60 million animals, but they barely survived the massive hunting and disease threats of the 1800s. Herds dwindled to hundreds or even dozens of animals. Preservation efforts began in earnest by the early 1900s and have never stopped. “The American bison today is a conservation success story, which has gone from less than 1,000 animals left in the world to approximately 500,000 in North America today,” says National Bison Association Executive Director Jim Matheson. Bison remain under threat from anthropogenic stressors. Consequently, they are receiving attention from scientists and other stakeholders who hope to see them thrive. Understanding how humans can help bison regenerate prairie ecosystems and maintain healthy bison populations is crucial to species abundance. The favorable status of bison today is the result of a unique, ongoing collaboration of conservation, agriculture, and public interest in restoring the species, says Matheson. In North America, bison can currently be found in all fifty US states and every Canadian province. This area represents the animal’s native range. While many of these bison are on private land, the species remains undomesticated. Ranchers and producers use this to their advantage, seeking to develop a robust and regenerative tool to maintain soil health and sequester carbon in bison grazing lands. Previous studies indicate that bison grazing encourages plant and species diversity. This includes changing the ground cover or patch structure across tallgrass environments. Bison also tend to “wallow” or vigorously roll around in the dirt. This intense behavior, which helps the animals shed their old coats, relieve insect bites, and add a fresh layer of protective dirt to their hides, leaves behind large, bowl-sized depressions. These “bison wallows” disturb the soil—permitting new vegetation to grow—and create spaces that collect rainwater; these things greatly benefit the ecosystem, researchers have found. In contrast, another study highlighted how humans in some areas of the world are removing bison grazers, thus decreasing grass and wildflower richness, evenness, and diversity over time. Contributions to Ecosystem Health “In high-productivity grasslands, like tallgrass prairie, we see that bison increase the number of plant species and the makeup of the plant community,” says Zak Ratajczak, assistant professor of biology and lead researcher of the KSU study. Areas with bison have less dominant tall grasses, more short grasses typical of drier grasslands, and a much higher abundance of wildflowers, such as goldenrod. The presence of bison in these grasslands has cascading effects on other parts of the ecosystem. For example, in places where bison graze, grasshopper, bee and other pollinator populations grow. “We’re now exploring whether bison affect the abundance of woody plants,” says Ratajczak. “The preliminary results are nuanced and suggest that bison might increase woody plants in some places and decrease them in others,” he adds. Concerns for Climate Extremes A major concern is that periods of severe heat or drought could become more frequent and intense in the foreseeable future. “These events can really test the resilience of species and ecosystems,” says Ratajczak. Based on their current study, the researchers found that plant communities created by bison were resilient to extreme heat in 2011 and extreme drought in 2022. The researchers suspect that the plant species the bison promoted have traits that help them cope with drought. These include new drought-resistant grasses; small, annual plants that reproduce early in the growing season before drought usually sets in; and some wildflowers with very deep roots. (Deep soil is less likely to be depleted during summer droughts). “I think it is really important to realize that the droughts we could face will be more intense and last longer, which could really test these communities,” Ratajczak adds. Researchers found that plant communities took between two to four years to recover after a drought. “What we don’t know is whether the plant community would be resilient if another drought occurred before the plant community had time to recover,” says Ratajczak. Restoration Efforts Require Broad Support Conservation groups are working to expand bison herds on public and private land across the North American continent. NGOs, the federal governments of Canada and the US, conservation groups, Indigenous communities, and private citizens are involved in bison restoration. “Bison farmers and ranchers are expanding herds to meet growing consumer demand for its clean, delicious, and supremely nutritious meat,” adds Matheson. A 2022 study on bison as a potential food source said that the “restoration of bison on tribal lands can, under appropriate vision and planning…[provide] a sustainable protein source to communities with some of the greatest food insecurity in the United States.” This would restore a significant cultural aspect to Indigenous people, adds Matheson. Progress in Protecting Prairie Health Bison are now recognized as a keystone species that impacts the overall health in the prairie ecosystem. The National Bison Association in the US has found that when bison flourish, they attract drought-resistant plants, other native flora and fauna, and birds to newly created habitats. “The future for bison restoration is very bright,” says Matheson. “Efforts on all bison fronts are expanding and have the public’s support across the board,” he adds. In 2016, the United States enacted the National Bison Legacy Act, which was supported by the National Bison Association, Intertribal Buffalo Council, and the Wildlife Conservation Society. Hailed as a “historic bill,” the National Bison Legacy Act officially names the North American bison as the US national mammal and honors its cultural, historical, and ecological significance. Sentiment is now firmly focused on the lessons learned from the near-demise of bison and how to manage this legendary species correctly. Along with the “love and dedication the animal has earned from us,” these factors “will ensure its continued return to its native landscape in North America,” says Matheson. *Natasha Spencer-Jolliffe is a freelance journalist and editor. Over the past 10 years, Natasha has reported for a host of publications, exploring the wider world and industries from environmental, scientific, business, legal, and sociological perspectives. Natasha has also been interviewed as an insight provider for research institutes and conferences. Editoral Notes: Sources: Interview with Jim Matheson, Executive Director, National Bison Association Interview with Zak Ratajczak, assistant professor of biology, Kansas State University, and lead researcher

By Natasha Spencer-Jolliffe* Following the initial global outbreak of COVID-19, the Philippines government responded by initiating some of the world’s most stringent lockdown measures. Under its highest-tiered lockdown, the country introduced Enhanced Community Quarantine (ECQ), which required residents to stay indoors unless they had a “quarantine pass” that permitted them to go shopping or conduct other urgent business. Schools and churches closed, and in-person and group meetings of faith were prohibited. As a result, Filipino youth, a friendly and highly social demographic, were isolated. With 30 million young Filipinos—over a quarter of the population (28%)—unable to access school and church, the country’s attention turned to how it could best support them. Coping with COVID-19 Through Faith Expressions Many Filipino youth adopted familiar religious expressions during COVID-19 to address their sudden and prolonged social isolation, according to a 2021 study, “Dungaw: Re-imagined Religious Expression in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic,” published in the Journal of Religion and Health. The Philippines is predominantly a Christian country, with 80% of its 113 million inhabitants belonging to the Roman Catholic religion, statistics show. “In the Philippines, where most people profess the Catholic faith, the salience of religion, popular piety, and adaptive coping strategies were demonstrated, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic,” says Catholic scholar Dr. Fides del Castillo, associate dean of the School of Innovation and Sustainability at the Department of Theology and Religious Education at De La Salle University in the Philippines. Dr. del Castillo, the lead author of the 2021 study, looked into the religious viewpoints and faith narratives of young Filipinos. Believing that ‘the transcendent has control over life-threatening situations’ allowed some Filipino Catholics to feel more optimistic and less depressed. “Prayers fostered hope among Filipino Catholics,” Dr. del Castillo—who specializes in the intersection of innovation and sustainability with theology and religious education—told The Earth & I. Moreover, believing that “the transcendent has control over life-threatening situations” allowed some Filipino Catholics to feel more optimistic and less depressed, she says. ‘Dungaw’: Seeking Divine Protection One area of religious expression that Dr. del Castillo researched for her 2021 study is called “dungaw,” which means “to look out.” Dungaw is a practice in which Filipino Catholics place cherished images of their faith—such as figures of Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, or Catholic saints—near a window or door of a house, typically around 6:00 in the evening. The families position the religious images to face the street or “look outside.” Sometimes, people will put the figures or images on a small table (“la mesita”) and/or create a small altar with candles. “They hope God will protect them from the virulent disease, console the suffering, cure the sick, foster hope during the health crisis, and miraculously end the COVID-19 pandemic” The family will then sing and pray the Holy Rosary and the Oratio Imperata, or Obligatory Prayer. The latter is an important part of the ritual because it “implores God’s protection, blesses health workers, and calls upon the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Catholic saints,” Dr. del Castillo wrote in her study, which focused on urban areas and youth. “Filipinos who practice dungaw coped with the pandemic,” says Dr del Castillo. This is because, as she says in the study, they “hope God will protect them from the virulent disease, console the suffering, cure the sick, foster hope during the health crisis, and miraculously end the COVID-19 pandemic.” Overcoming Lockdowns: The Concept of ‘Tengaw’ In another study, Dr del Castillo examined Filipino youth who live in rural, primarily agrarian areas and repurposed the indigenous practice of tengaw to handle the government-ordered lockdowns. Tengaw has its roots in spirituality. This religious expression (“days of rest”) refers to staying at home to avoid disturbing spirits in the fields. It comes from the Christian tradition of sabbath, Dr. del Castillo explains. “Tengaw is essential during the agricultural cycle for Cordilleran peoples in the Cordilleran Mountain Province, Philippines,” Dr. del Castillo says. “Before the planting season and after a harvest, the council of elders usually declares tengaw, and villagers are prohibited from passing through the rice terraces because their disturbance might upset the ‘spirits,’” Dr. del Castillo wrote in “Re-Imagining the Religious Beliefs and Cultural Practices of Indigenous Christian Youth,” published in Religions 2022. Villagers are prohibited from passing through the rice terraces because their disturbance might upset the ‘spirits.’ The “days of rest” during this time are also connected with cleansing, protecting, and healing the community. “Thus, the concept of ‘staying at home’ for a specific time is a part of Cordilleran’s life,” says Dr. del Castillo. “This is a valuable lesson for many Christian Filipinos to reflect on the sabbath and the importance of rest.” The Importance of Religion During Crises Even after the pandemic’s restrictions are lifted, the effects of isolation may prove challenging to resolve. Studies by Dr. del Castillo and others, which explore the intersection of theology, religion, and education, may provide comfort and support. For instance, how successful were these faith practices during COVID-19, and can they be effective to meet future social, psychological, and spiritual needs of Filipino children? “Looking back on the articulations and praxis of faith in these [studies], it is noteworthy that many people continue to use religious coping to get through the different challenges in life,” says Dr. del Castillo. Most of the participants in her studies said they communicated to God through prayer, while some found solace in written religious materials. Others found meaning in the crisis by helping the poor and suffering. Many used technologies to view online worship services or otherwise fill the void left by in-person religious gatherings. The findings show that many people find religious practices to be useful and necessary in stressful times, says Dr. del Castillo. “It also affirms that many still believe God is present and active in their lives.” Lessons, learning, leaning in To date, Dr. del Castillo has published sixty-seven studies and commentaries on religious education, empirical theology and Laylayan theology—the theology of a particular Filipino community—in addition to her recent focus on Filipino youth and the COVID-19 pandemic. In an unpublished-to-date study, she asked several young people what matters in their lives. Their answers and survey results, which relate to the earlier published studies, suggest they need more time to pray and meditate. Dr. del Castillo says that parents, educators, health professionals and policymakers can look for ways to provide opportunities to create meaning and offer time for quiet moments, prayer, and personal space. “The world has been full of noise, and people long for silence where they can listen attentively and understand themselves and their God better,” Dr. del Castillo says. *Natasha Spencer-Jolliffe is a freelance journalist and editor. Over the past 10 years, Natasha has reported for a host of publications, exploring the wider world and industries from environmental, scientific, business, legal, and sociological perspectives. Natasha has also been interviewed as an insight provider for research institutes and conferences. Editorial sources: Interview with Dr. Fides del Castillo, Associate Dean of the School of Innovation and Sustainability at the Department of Theology and Religious Education at De La Salle University, the Philippines.

By Natasha Spencer-Jolliffe* Combatting climate change means reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs). A promising path to that goal is a practice called carbon farming, which aims to sequester carbon from the atmosphere into the soil and vegetation. Farmers and agriculturists bolster their traditional operations with new carbon-centric practices, such as reducing tillage and planting cover crops, to keep carbon trapped in soil and improve soil health. According to the Carbon Cycle Institute, a California environmental organization, “Carbon farming is a whole system approach to optimizing carbon capture on working landscapes by implementing practices that are known to improve the rate at which CO2 is removed from the atmosphere and stored in plant material and/or soil organic matter.” Challenges with carbon farming range from its impermanence to its low- or no-tilling practices. However, countries, including Australia, United States, and Germany, are experimenting with this approach. Principles of Carbon Farming Carbon farming aims at (1) reducing (and eliminating) carbon emissions caused by certain production-oriented farming practices, and (2) increasing agro-ecological restoration and conservation. To this effect, the Carbon Cycle Institute recommends an extensive list of carbon farming practices, following the US Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service’s (NRCS) list of conservation practices. For instance, during the off-season, carbon farmers plant cover crops, such as legumes, to cover soil rather than for a future harvest. Combining trees and crops on the same land enables trees to capture CO2 from the atmosphere, while restoring wetlands can also collect large amounts of carbon in plants and soil. Combining trees and crops on the same land enables trees to capture CO2 from the atmosphere, while restoring wetlands can also collect large amounts of carbon in plants and soil. California’s Alameda County pioneered carbon farming practices applicable to home gardens and urban landscapes. Its public agency, StopWaste, promotes feeding the soil with compost, which encourages root growth and improved soil health. Good for the Environment Carbon farming practices are “vital for the long-term health and productivity of agriculture in California,” says Trevor Probert, Program Services Specialist at StopWaste. For example, the carbon farming practice of no-tilling or reduced-tilling helps agricultural soil recover from the damage caused by over-tilling. Over-tilling leads to carbon emissions, sub-soil compaction, and damaged soil structure over time. No-tilling rebuilds soil structure and aggregation, a key component of soil health. In addition, carbon farming improves soil and water conservation, biodiversity, earthworm activity, and ecosystem health. “There can also be improved air and water quality and more efficient use of agricultural inputs such as fertilizers,” Probert adds. StopWaste partners with the Ryals Lab from the University of California, Merced, to conduct carbon farming research. The research examines the connection between compost and fluxes in GHGs and soil carbon to explore the application of compost and how this contributes to the environment. Compost application is one of many carbon farming practices. The organization has been researching rangeland property in the Altamont Hills in Livermore, with the Alameda County Resource Conservation District being a major supporter of that project. “We are just beginning research with some cities in Alameda County looking at urban landscapes, including managed turf fields used for recreation and sports,” says Probert. Money-making Motivations Within California, state and federal grants are available to help offset the cost for farmers and ranchers to switch to carbon farming practices, Probert says. For ranchers, carbon farming can improve foliage for grazing, which leads to larger, healthier cattle. “Improved soil health can enhance product quality and nutrient density,” Probert adds. Sometimes, it may even lead to a premium price for their products. “Improved soil health can enhance product quality and nutrient density,” Probert adds. Carbon Credits? Can carbon farming be integrated into carbon credit markets? “At this time, I’m not sure how increases in soil carbon will be involved” in any such thing in California, says Probert. “There needs to be more research.” However, Massachusetts-based, agricultural technology company Indigo Ag has developed a program to enable farmers to produce carbon credits by making qualifying practice changes on their farms. “Farmers who enroll in the Carbon by Indigo program can produce carbon credits based on the GHGs sequestered as a result of new practices implemented on their fields,” says a spokesperson for Indigo Ag. “These credits are then sold to corporations for high-quality, nature-based solutions to meet their sustainability targets.” “Farmers who enroll in the Carbon by Indigo program can produce carbon credits based on the GHGs sequestered as a result of new practices implemented on their fields[.] These credits are then sold to corporations for high-quality, nature-based solutions to meet their sustainability targets.” Credits are generated based on documentation provided by the farmer and soil samples taken from a subset of fields in the program. “Indigo Ag is the only company producing verified, registry-issued soil carbon credits at scale, rewarding farmers for adopting sustainable farming practices that benefit the environment and their operations,” the spokesperson states. The Carbon by Indigo program includes removals and reduction of CO2 and other GHGs. “The credits are measured, verified, and issued under the most rigorous scientific standards, making them the highest quality agricultural carbon credits available on the voluntary market,” the spokesperson continues. Disadvantages of Carbon Farming The switch from production-oriented farming to carbon farming practices has startup and opportunity costs. Often, technical skills need to be learned or relearned. New equipment may be required, and there can be regional or economic challenges associated with certain practices. For example, one challenge facing California is how to help make compost more available to farmers and ranchers. Another challenge is that farmers and ranchers may be risk-averse to changing how they operate their businesses. However, with the changing climate and increasing prices of fertilizer and water in California, Probert says, “We hope we will see folks encouraged to try something new.” Other critics note that carbon farming is easily “undone” if the soils are disturbed, even accidentally, and there are limits to how much of the element can be kept in soil. Moreover, farmers who already use recommended sustainability practices on their land may see little benefit to implement carbon farming. Steps to Starting a Carbon Farm Many pathways are available for farmers and ranchers to become carbon farmers. In some cases, even before these farming practices were labeled as such, small family farms and ranches already used many of these practices. “Indigenous communities and land stewards utilized many of these practices way before scientists ever began researching them,” Probert says. Technical assistance is available at the Carbon Cycle Institute, local Resource Conservation Districts and NRCS. There are also grants, including the California Department of Food and Agriculture’s Healthy Soils Program to help people start carbon farming. Tools like COMET Planner can help farmers plan their practices and estimate their benefits to the environment and their livelihoods. More Research Needed “Carbon farming not only mitigates climate change but also improves soil health, increases biodiversity, and enhances agricultural productivity,” says Probert. “On the other hand, carbon farming can require significant land use changes and compete with other land uses, such as food production or conservation.” More answers are needed. In California, for example, researchers are asking about the state’s long-term outlook for increased drought climate events. For instance, will less water impact carbon farming’s potential? “Soils are also incredibly complex, and we need more research to understand how carbon farming practices affect diverse agro-ecological settings,” says Probert. Also, beneficial soil organisms enjoy a balanced carbon-to-nitrogen ratio, so carbon farming introduces more of the element to agricultural soils. Will available nitrogen play a limiting factor in carbon farming’s potential? “California is emerging as a hub for this type of research,” says Probert. *Natasha Spencer-Jolliffe is a freelance journalist and editor. Over the past 10 years, Natasha has reported for a host of publications, exploring the wider world and industries from environmental, scientific, business, legal, and sociological perspectives. Natasha has also been interviewed as an insight provider for research institutes and conferences. Sources: Interview with Trevor Probert, Program Services Specialist at StopWaste, the Alameda County Waste Management Authority in the US. Interview with Indigo Ag spokesperson

By Dr. Moses Kathuri Njeru* Known for its majestic scenery, Kenya is home to over 53 million people. As its economy continues to develop, twenty-seven percent of Kenya’s population, more than 14 million people and counting, are living in urban centers. In fact, the five major cities of Nairobi, Mombasa, Kisumu, Eldoret and Nakuru house almost two thirds of all urban dwellers. However, with progress comes new challenges. The increasing human population, industrialization and other human activities have rapidly increased the production of solid wastes. Unfortunately, the increases in Kenya’s wealth and population have not matched the capacity to handle the associated wastes generated. Each major region has attempted to meet this challenge with varied success. Kisumu’s Road to Recovery Kisumu County in western Kenya is home to over 1.1 million people. It is one of the most densely populated parts of the country. The county’s capital city Kisumu, on the shores of Lake Victoria, has a population of more than half a million, but 60% of this population is found in informal settlements. Approximately 500 metric tons (551 tons) of wastes is generated within the county on a daily basis. A fifth of that is collected and transported, while the remaining four-fifths accumulate in the open. There are several solid waste dump sites throughout the county with the Kachok dumpsite in Kisumu City being the largest. About 20% of the solid wastes generated in Kisumu County is burned in the open—in the markets, on the street sides, transfer points, at the dumpsite and in estates. Since there has been no formal system of waste separation, locals have engaged in the informal economy of waste recovery since the 1970s. Currently groups of youth have dominated waste recovery efforts at the Kachok dumpsite. When public waste management services are lacking, local people, including children, try to earn money as waste pickers in local dumpsites. In Kisumu County, the Department of Environment is responsible for provision of solid waste management services. In each of the five sub counties, there is an Environmental Officer reporting directly to the Chief Officer in Charge of the Environment. To guide the effective and efficient solid waste management in the County, the government developed the Kisumu County (Solid Waste Management) Act in 2015. The Kisumu Solid Waste Management Board established under the act, regulates and supervises all solid waste management issues. The act further provides for recycling of wastes and strengthening of public-private partnerships in environmental education and reduction of wastes. There are partnerships between the county government, civil society groups, and non-governmental organizations to enhance solid waste management. The county government has provided financial support to these non-state actors to acquire more efficient technologies and fund other public initiatives. These include setting up waste bins that allow citizens to sort waste easily, and the organization of monthly public clean-ups. Nakuru Organizes Governance Nakuru County is the third most populous county with a population of over 2.1 million. In 2017 estimates, the World Bank reported that Nakuru County generates about 513 metric tons (565 tons) of wastes daily. A great majority (80%) of these wastes are biodegradable while 20% is non-biodegradable. The Department of Environment, Natural Resources and Energy of the Nakuru County has the responsibility of waste management within the county. Broadly, the department is involved in policy and strategy development, setting household waste collection charges, cleaning of public spaces, issuing of permits for waste management activities and supervising waste collection. Due to limited financial and infrastructural resources, the county government concentrates on waste collection within the Central Business Districts of major towns. However, the county government has contracted forty Community Based Organizations (CBOs) to supplement its effort in waste management. The county is divided into forty units managed by one contracted CBO. Additionally, there are licensed (by county government and the National Environment Management Authority) individual actors involved in waste management who do not necessarily report to the county government. Mombasa Makes Headway With over 1.1 million people, Mombasa City is the second largest city after Nairobi. Mombasa County generates about 1000 metric tons (1100 tons) of solid wastes daily. It is estimated that 50% of this waste is collected and disposed of while the other half remains uncollected. The county has three dumpsites: Chanda, Mwakirunge, and Kibarani. In the past, Kibarani was preferred over the others because of its proximity to the source of the wastes. However, Mombasa County has worked to decommission this dumpsite and turn it into a recreational park as part of one of Kenya’s larger regeneration projects. Open burning of waste is an ongoing problem throughout Kenya. Local people rely on this method of waste disposal due to limited public waste collection and a lack of education on the harms it causes. The Department of Environment headed by a Director, is in charge of solid waste management in the county. To ease collection, transportation and disposal of wastes, the county is zoned into four areas with a superintendent in charge of each zone. There are many initiatives geared towards solid waste management including: Guidelines and Capacity Building Framework for Waste Collection in High Density & Unserviced Areas in Mombasa County. Standard Operating Procedures for Recycling and Solid Waste Collection in High Density and Unserviced areas. Service Level Agreement for Recycling and Solid Waste Collection Services in Mombasa County. Of all counties, Mombasa has the most waste collection equipment, including heavy equipment and a fleet of more than eighty trucks for solid waste management. Despite the huge number of waste collection trucks, almost fifty percent of the solid wastes in Mombasa remain uncollected. Delayed collection of wastes attracts informal recovery activities and open burning at those temporary collection points. The human resources to operate the trucks and equipment may not be adequate. There is no formalized waste separation. However, few CBOs and individual actors pick waste either at disposal points or at collection points. Nairobi Develops A Plan Nairobi County is the capital city of Kenya. It has a population of over 4.4 million people and produces about 2,400 metric tons (2600 tons) of wastes daily, out of which 600 metric tons (660 tons) remains uncollected. Two legal documents guide waste management in the county: the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (ISWMP) revised in 2010 and Nairobi City County Solid Waste Management (SWM) Act of 2015. The Act recognizes that solid waste management is a shared responsibility among waste generators, owners and occupiers of premises, contracted service providers among others. The Act acknowledges the importance of public participation for effective solid waste management. The Department of Environment of Nairobi County Government has a leading role in solid waste management in the county. The Chief Officer for Environment, Water, Energy and Natural Resources directs the daily operations in the department regarding waste management. In executing this function, the Chief Officer is supported by the seventeen sub-county environmental officers as well as enforcement officers within the department. The county government has disposal sites, heavy equipment, and a fleet of trucks for solid waste management. Although Dandora dumpsite is the only designated disposal site for solid waste in the county, experts have long observed that the site is full and a source of pollution to the neighborhood. A number of CBOs, youth groups and private waste handling companies supplement the work of the county in solid waste management. The county government also works closely with the Kenya Alliance of Residents Association (KARA) in the development of waste regulations, NEMA in enhancing compliance and enforcement, and the United Nations Environment Programme on matters of carbon emissions as it relates to burning waste. These non-state actors are involved in the promotion of the "three Rs" (reduce, reuse, recycle) and environmental education. Eldoret Struggles to Move Forward The town of Eldoret is the fifth largest and fastest growing urban center with a total population of more than 470,000 people. Eldoret generates about 600 metric tons (660 tons) of wastes daily, with 55% being collected, 15% recovered, and 45% percent remaining uncollected. Poor infrastructure, limited education, and a lack of economic incentives make improving the waste management system in Eldoret difficult. Open dumpsites need more sophisticated management to overcome years of environmental neglect. The management of solid waste in Eldoret is the responsibility of the Department of Environment and Enforcement under the county government of Uasin Gishu. The county government uses the open disposal method for solid wastes. The current open dumpsite is an over-thirty-year-old, discarded quarry which was converted into a waste disposal site without much environmental considerations. Because the site is full, the waste transporters are forced to dispose of the wastes in undesignated sites. The road to the site is impassable during rainy seasons. Ongoing Challenges of Solid Waste Management in Urban Centers Eldoret exemplifies the key challenges to sustainable solid waste management in Kenya. Although there are incinerators in the cities and major towns, some were designed and constructed without eco-friendly considerations. The prevalence of uncontrolled burning of waste continues to release toxic emissions including persistent organic pollutants that build up in the environment. Fluctuating prices for different types of wastes also create uncertainty for stakeholders. Often the public does not have adequate environmental education and training on the three Rs. There is little to incentivize private collectors to participate in solid waste management. Local governments lack the financial, technical, and organizational resources necessary to effectively collect and manage all the wastes generated within the county. An inadequate policy framework falls short on improving the involvement of non-state actors in waste management. Particularly, there is a lack of designated sites for all relevant stakeholders and private entities. The relaxed implementation and monitoring of solid waste laws and regulations make the challenges even more difficult to overcome. *Dr. Moses Kathuri Njeru is a Ph.D. holder in Environmental Sciences, Masters of Arts in Environmental Planning and Management and B.Sc. in Environmental Science. Dr. Njeru is a Lecturer of Environmental Sciences with over ten years teaching and research experience at Chuka University, Kenya. His interests are in waste management, gender and environment, and sustainable management of agroecosystems.

By Michael Stenstrom* In Ethiopia, most of the population survives on small farms that rely on rain. As the slow-onset effects of climate change apply pressure on the northern highlands through droughts and other changes to rainfall patterns, more and more people are leaving the farm in search of urban opportunities. Ethiopia, one of the world’s most populous countries and the second-most-populous in Africa, is in the throes of a growing wave of internal migration. Numerous environmental, social, and economic factors have been pushing and pulling swaths of the population to move, usually from the countryside to the cities. Large parts of rural Ethiopia, dominated by small subsistence farms, are threatened by a changing climate. Farms that survive only if rain falls at the right time of year are almost literally turning to dust during long droughts. When rain does come, it can be unpredictable and late. Poverty and persistent hardship in many of the rural highlands and some lowland areas are a driving force, pushing people to uproot. In a tale from time immemorial, inhabitants migrate in search of opportunity. Dynamic migration throughout Ethiopia is contributing to the emergence of socioeconomic and cultural dichotomies that are jostling uncomfortably against one another in the cities: farmer and urbanite; the traditional and the modern; the multicultural and the monocultural. The clash of these dichotomies creates a growing perception among many Ethiopians that life is simply better in the cities than it is in the countryside. A perhaps more astonishing belief that many hold is that migration to the east—to cities like Jigjiga, Harar, Diredawa, and Borena—is like migrating to the land of peace and opportunity, where one’s hard work and determination guarantee a prosperous and successful life. Though one may consider these beliefs to be naïve, such people, inspired by optimism, can often become the most industrious entrepreneurs, creating wealth for the cities in which they settle. Compared to rural areas, the Somali regional state capital, Jigjiga, provides residents with better access to physical and social infrastructure. Education, health care, clean water, and sanitation services—essentials for a developing society—are available. Necessary financial services, including banks, microfinancing and credit, and ATMs for quick cash withdrawal, are available in the city. City residents support their families in various ways. Some find work in the public or private sectors while others are dependent on the informal economic sector, like petty trading and service delivery. Jigjiga is a hub of commercial activity and an investment destination for those in the Somali region. Booming business and conveniently located ports through Wuchale to Berbera make the city particularly attractive for international merchants focused on import and export activities. All of these factors—location, political importance, and even its long history on a major trade route—make Jigjiga a particularly attractive destination for migrants. The growing boom in the construction, energy, services, transportation, and communication sectors throughout Ethiopia has particularly benefited Jigjiga. New infrastructure, buildings, and developments under construction have given residents greater opportunities and a sense of an upward trend in the city’s quality of life. The substantial investments being made in Jigjiga create an increase in demand for labor and human capital, which in turn attracts more migrants in search of stability and opportunity. On the other hand, the rapid and unplanned flow of migrants and the increase in population pose challenges for the community, the migrant populations themselves, and the government. One of the impacts of increased migration is the overburdening of existing infrastructure. These days, basic services, such as access to electricity, pipeline water supplies, and residential houses and shelters, have not been able to keep up with the ever-increasing demand. Delivery of such public services requires time over the medium to long term to properly plan and build infrastructure. Just allocating the necessary funds for massive government-funded public development needs considerable lead time. Infrastructure investments operate under the assumption that by the time construction is complete, the final product will be able to serve the community stably and effectively. However, sudden population bursts, such as those in Jigjiga and other booming Ethiopian cities, create shortages, shortfalls, and vulnerabilities in existing and new infrastructure. Therefore, these longer-term development projects are unable to fulfill the needs of the unexpectedly inflated population. This induced shortage of public goods and resources degrades the quality of life that citizens expect from living in what should be a vibrant capital city. The gap between expectations and reality has had many impacts on the quality of life and the economic and social freedoms of the city’s residents. For example, When a population bulge creates water scarcity, basic health and hygiene can no longer be guaranteed. Women and girls suddenly have to work much harder to collect water from distant sources. The overtaxing of the service sector causes prices to skyrocket. Transportation services become overcrowded and taxis become very expensive. In this environment, people once again experience cultural clashes. In spite of the difficulties and stressors on migrant communities, many of these new residents find their living conditions in the city to be good enough. Their perspective tends to remain positive and hopeful. However, to local urbanites, migrants are the source of most city problems. They see the massive influx of migrants as the direct cause of the overtaxed system of public benefits and limited access to public services. While some longtime city dwellers choose to view migrants in a positive light, all too many see the newcomers negatively. The situation continues to change rapidly, and observers still have not been able to assess how well migrants are able to blend into local communities. These unknown factors may lead to further tensions between the two broad groups. For now, some of the best ways for Jigjiga to safely and peacefully meet the needs of new residents is through organizing infrastructure investments and coordinating regional government security measures. Construction and small businesses are likely to be two of the most critical focal points for investment to bolster stability. Cooperation from the regional-level government is needed to monitor and to ensure security in the face of uncertainty. With local resources already stretched thin, assistance from whatever sources possible is essential. Jigjiga is one example of many cities that will experience ramped-up migration due to climatic and other stressors now and into the foreseeable future. When people and communities have to navigate “new normals,” the resulting uneasy state of flux can be precarious for all sides to navigate. Avoiding vulnerability to climate-change and subsequent impacts on cities and communities’ development requires that leaders recognize new challenges their cities and regions are facing and carefully work to mitigate the worst of possible outcomes. *Miftah Mohammed Kemal is an assistant professor of Political Science at Jigjiga University and a consultant of Social Science.

By Michael Stenstrom* Growing Resistance of Antibiotics One of the miracles of modern public health systems is the wastewater treatment facility, providing clean, drinkable water to millions. Moreover, it offers a line of defense against antibiotic-resistant bacteria. But questions have arisen over these treatment plants because of the on-site intermixing of antibiotics and bacteria. Antibiotics have been greatly accumulating in wastewater in recent decades, and vast growths of bacteria are used in treatment facilities to break down toxins. Antibiotic failure due to increasing antibiotic resistance has become a worldwide threat to public health. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has reported a rapid rise in cases of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections. In 2013, the US alone suffered two million cases, with twenty-three thousand deaths[1]. By 2019, these cases had jumped to 2.8 million, with thirty-five thousand deaths. Globally, antibiotic resistance accounts for at least seven hundred thousand lives lost per year[2]. Over time, the world sees more and more antibiotic resistance to the important antibiotics that humanity has used to protect ourselves for the last seventy or eighty years. The World Health Organization (WHO) has documented what it calls priority pathogens, including Staphylococcus aureus, which display significant resistance to multiple antibiotics. These antibiotic-resistant bacteria (ARBs) and antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) can lead to deadly infections and increase the risk of complications during medical procedures. A major cause of this growing resistance is the widespread use and even overuse of common antibiotics. The CDC reports that as much as 30% of the roughly 250 million antibiotic prescriptions filled annually are unnecessary. Antibiotics are also used extensively in animal food production. The most common antibiotic used in animal agriculture is tetracycline. Farmers feed cows and pigs plenty of tetracycline to keep them healthy while raising them under adverse conditions, such as severe overcrowding. Since 2009, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has tracked how much of each antibiotic considered important for the protection of human health is sold for animal agriculture. The overall amount sold increased annually from 2009 to 2015, when totals peaked at 9.7 million kg (21.6 million lbs). Recognizing the need to curb overuse, the FDA has since worked to reduce these amounts. The agency’s latest report, published in December 2020, shows improvements, with an overall sales drop to roughly 6.2 million kg (13.6 million lbs), a 36% decrease from 2015 to 2019 (but including a 3 percent increase from 2018). It remains to be seen if this decrease is a temporary fluctuation or a sign of a long-term positive trend. Wastewater Treatment and Antibiotic Resistance ARBs and ARGs can be spread throughout the environment by a number of means. These include wind, soil and water movement, and animal vectors. One emerging area of research is the transport of ARBs and ARGs in water, especially wastewater. Antibiotics are used far and wide for human health, in agriculture, and in other places. Eventually, they collect in wastewater treatment plants. Antibiotics do not linger in our bodies. Whether consumed as medicine or through our food, antibiotics are eventually expelled and wind up in wastewater. And when antibiotics are manufactured, the wastewater produced is also sent to treatment plants. Once treated, this water may eventually be discharged to ground surfaces, where it can enter aquifers and the drinking water supply. Alternatively, processed wastewater can be used to irrigate and grow the plants we eat. Thus, a key question arises: Are wastewater treatment plants protecting the environment and human health from the spread of antibiotic resistance? There is a concern around potential ARG production in treatment plants based on the way treatment plants work. Such facilities harness natural processes, including the action of bacteria and protozoa, to clean and filter toxins from the water that comes in. Wastewater plants develop bacteria that are able to break down and detoxify the types of contaminants typical for the local community. These can be industrial chemicals, organic materials, domestic cleaning compounds, and the like. Once they adapt, these bacteria thrive in the plant’s environment, increasing their numbers while acting as an important partner in reducing pollution. Treatment plants both develop these specialized strains of useful bacteria and reduce the presence of bacterial, viral, and protozoan pathogens. It is common for a treatment plant to reduce harmful pathogens by 99% or more. Follow-on processes, including the use of chlorine compounds or ultraviolet treatments, provide additional disinfection that can result in pathogen reduction of 99.99% or more. Understanding the process begs the question: Can these plants that are designed to grow toxin-digesting bacteria also grow bacteria that adapt to metabolize or resist antibiotics present in wastewater? It is critical to ensure that wastewater treatment plants are neither creating more ARBs nor releasing ARGs from the plants back into circulation. To this end, my research team at the University of California, Los Angeles, reviewed studies from around the world on the presence of ARGs in wastewater treatment facilities. From twenty-five studies containing 215 observations of various treatment processes, including activated sludge and membrane bioreactors, we found that 70% of observations showed ARGs decreased, 18% showed increases, and 12% indicated no changes. However, we observed some issues with the available data. Since much of the previous research was conducted with other goals in mind, the data did not always reflect the key measurements we were investigating. Furthermore, in some cases, the details identifying the various types of wastewater treatment plants were not always reported accurately. This was likely because much of the research was conducted by molecular biologists and scientists in other specialties, rather than wastewater treatment plant experts. Therefore, the final reported percentages (70, 18, and 12) may not be accurate either. Plants are constructed in different ways and have different operating strategies. These differences in design and strategy greatly affect the performance of the plant for removing specific pollutants. For example, a facility treating the heavy toxins in petroleum refinery wastewaters must be designed and operated differently than a plant handling wastewater from potato processing. My team is currently embarking on an extended research project to track ARGs through modern, well-operated treatment systems. We need to understand the fate of ARGs that enter wastewater treatment plants and are potentially released into the environment. Our goal is to determine if these quantities are increasing and, if so, how to stop this. We recently completed preliminary research on the fate of ARGs in a selection of treatment plants in southern California that utilize the activated sludge process. Activated sludge is the most common approach used for treatment and is especially useful in large cities and densely populated areas. We targeted plants that were representative of the majority of municipal treatment facilities where antibiotics are found. These plants serve hundreds of thousands of people and include hospitals, with their specialized wastewaters. The plants were selected in pairs to identify the most important operating characteristic, the solids retention time (SRT), also called mean cell retention time or sludge age. The SRT is the average age of the bacterial cells harnessed to treat waste. The measure can range from 1.5 days (short SRT) to 30 days (long SRT). This identification is critical, because slowly growing cells that survive only at long SRT are required for breaking down certain toxins and pollutants. Short SRT plants are less expensive to construct and operate but are also less efficient in removing trace or emerging contaminants, such as many found in personal care products, pesticides, and pharmaceuticals. Longer SRT plants are generally more expensive and require more land area but are much better at removing trace organics and nutrients, such as nitrogen species (ammonia, nitrate, and nitrite). Most of the advanced treatment plants employ long SRT to produce higher-quality reclaimed water. Through sampling and analysis, we could measure the overall presence of the varieties of ARGs we targeted. Samples were collected from the influent, the secondary treatment process (where the bacteria digest toxins), and the effluent. While more research is needed to verify the results, our preliminary findings are promising. Though all ARG targets were consistently detected before and after the activated sludge processes at all the plants, analysis showed clear absolute reductions of ARGs from the influent to the effluent samples. Furthermore, long SRT–type plants showed greater reductions of ARGs than shorter SRT plants. The current wastewater treatment trend toward water reclamation, which relies on long SRT technology, would be encouraged if we can confirm these findings. However, we observed that relative ARG abundance has not gone down as much as we would like. Our research is ongoing and will further investigate other aspects of bacterial activities and wastewater applications, including horizontal gene transfer and the effects of heavy metal toxicity to see if they affect ARG removal. However promising, these results in no way reduce the need for better management of antibiotics. It is clear that antibiotic resistance is increasing worldwide. The WHO recommends that the world urgently invest in the research and development of new antibiotics to combat the disease- and infection-producing bacteria that have developed antibiotic resistance. Our preliminary results suggest that wastewater treatment will reduce the introduction of ARGs to the environment. Even so, society must diminish the total volume of antibiotics we put into circulation. This remains a critical concern. *Michael Stenstrom is a professor of environmental engineering at the University of California, Los Angeles. He has particular expertise in water and wastewater treatment issues. References: US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2013. “Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States, 2013.” US Department of Health and Human Services. Liu, Lin, Chaoxiang Liu, Jiayu Zheng, Xu Huang, Zhen Wang, Yuhong Liu, and Gefu Zhu. 2013. “Elimination of Veterinary Antibiotics and Antibiotic Resistance Genes from Swine Wastewater in the Vertical Flow Constructed Wetlands. Chemosphere 91(8): 1088–1093.

By Mark Smith* For the last eighteen months, humanity has been trapped between two existential crises. On one side, the COVID-19 pandemic has wreaked havoc on people’s lives, national health systems, and economies around the globe, while, on the other side, relentless damage to the environment continues to have devastating real-world consequences. The two issues, however, are not unconnected. The widespread use of personal protective equipment (PPE) has become a necessity in order to minimize the spread of coronavirus infections. This means masks, gloves, and other protective gear which were once mostly used in healthcare settings are now used widely by the public in many nations around the globe. Along with vaccines and social distancing, PPE has been one of the three principal forms of defense against the spread of the potentially deadly disease. But extensive use of disposable PPE has brought with it unintended consequences—contributing significant damage to the environment—particularly in terms of the amount of plastic pollution entering oceans. This is occurring just when it seems that the message about the long-lasting damage plastic was doing to the planet was finally being heard. “Before the pandemic began, the tide seemed to be slowly turning in the fight against plastic pollution,” said Will McCallum, Head of Oceans at Greenpeace UK. “But the dramatic rise in single-use plastics during the pandemic, which can be seen in the form of discarded PPE and plastic bags on our beaches, in our rivers and oceans, and on our streets, risks undermining so much of the progress that has been made in recent years.” The Scale of the Impact When it comes to how much PPE the world goes through every day, the numbers are astronomical. One study estimates that 3.4 billion face masks are thrown away every day. Another estimate 190 billion face masks per month (4.3 billion per day) and 65 billion gloves. In England alone, the use of PPE in the first six months of the pandemic added an additional 1% to the country’s carbon burden according to a study by Brighton and Sussex Medical School. The report’s lead author Chantelle Rizan, a doctor and sustainable surgery fellow at the Centre for Sustainable Healthcare in Oxford, said, “Our research looked at the carbon footprint of PPE supplied to health and social care in the first six months of the pandemic, and we were shocked that this equated to the equivalent of flying as a passenger from London to New York 244 times each and every day.” Where Does the PPE Go? The surge in demand for disposable PPE as the pandemic unfolded was so massive that waste disposal systems were simply unable to keep up. In China’s Hubei Province for example, infectious medical waste increased by 600% from 40 tons per day to 240 tons per day, overwhelming the existing medical transport and disposal infrastructure around hospitals. The sheer amount of PPE and the lack of places to dispose of it have led to it increasingly being discarded on the streets and finding its way into the world’s waterways. Last year, the Great British Beach clean by the Marine Conservation Society (MCS) found gloves or masks on 30% of all beaches surveyed. And because of the materials used in its construction, once the PPE is there, it is not disappearing anytime soon. According to Teale Phelps Bondaroff, director of research for OceansAsia, single-use face masks are often made with polypropylene plastic, which can take as long as 450 years to decompose. Along with increased production of PPE and a lack of waste infrastructure to manage growing demand, there are a number of other factors that contribute to littering PPE in such high quantities, from a lack of available disposal bins to simple carelessness. Steve Hynd, Policy Manager at the environmental organization City to Sea, identified that part of the problem was also communication. “There is a clear lack of messaging or guidance for people about the responsible way to interact with PPE,” he said. “It should be part of any official guidance on PPE what is best to do with it after use.” Devastating Impact on the Environment Using plastic in PPE is problematic, because 79% of all plastic produced globally has not been recycled, typically ending up at landfill or entering our oceans where they break down into toxic microplastics. The French environmental organization, Opération Mer Propre (Operation Clean Sea) has released footage of PPE littering ocean floors, with their founder, Laurent Lombard, warning that there could soon be “more masks than jellyfish in the waters of the Mediterranean.” Hynd said, “These single-use plastic masks are finding their way into our natural environment where they are entangling wildlife, breaking down, being consumed by wildlife, and therefore entering the food chain. It is significantly contributing to the wider problem of plastic pollution.” It is not just the unsightly nature of PPE and its physical impact on wildlife that are the problem either. Sunlight and heat cause plastic to release greenhouse gases which accelerate climate change. As that speeds up and the planet gets hotter, the plastic breaks down into more methane and ethylene, increasing the rate of climate change and causing something of a feedback loop. The problem is likely to get worse too, according to Rizan. “If we use traditional PPE at the rates we have seen over this last year, we will continue to have significant detrimental impact on the environment. This in turn has a detrimental impact on human health, alongside contributing to species loss and resource depletion.” Health Risks with Discarded PPE Of course, by its very nature, discarded PPE is not just a problem for the environment but a potential health hazard too. “There is potential infection risk associated with handling PPE litter if it has been recently discarded, although this can be minimized using a no-touch technique such as using a litter grabber,” said Rizan. Taking Action When it comes to reducing the impact of PPE on the environment, action can be taken at the governmental and individual levels. Rizan said, “Our research highlights a number of key areas that can help reduce the environmental impact whilst maintaining safe levels of protection for patient and staff.” She said these strategies included shifting to domestic manufacture of PPE, rationing glove use (such as by using hand washing where clinically appropriate), using reusable alternatives where available, as well as recycling. McCallum added that, throughout the duration of the pandemic, lawmakers in Great Britain had a big role to play in getting the message across that PPE does not have to be non-reusable. “While it was correct to be cautious at the beginning of an unprecedented global pandemic, the (British) Government could have made it clearer from the outset that reusable face masks and food packaging are just as safe and effective for members of the public as single-use alternatives and far less harmful for the environment.” For individuals, minimizing the use of non-recyclable PPE and utilizing reusable protective gear when appropriate are keys to staying safe, while also helping reduce the impact on the environment, according to Rizan. “We feel that awareness is key, so that individuals have the knowledge to make the decision to take responsibility for their PPE waste and, better still, to transition to reusable PPE solutions.” Hynd agreed. He said the most important thing that most ordinary people could do was carry a reusable mask, wash it regularly, and use it time and time again. “This would hugely cut down on the number of single-use plastic masks used and thrown away.” “If you invest a small amount into buying a few reusable masks you will save money very quickly and reduce your environmental impact significantly.” Hynd also hailed the introduction of new mask recycling schemes in some stores, but warned, “This isn’t a silver bullet. It’s really just a drop in a very plastic polluted ocean. We are being flooded with single-use plastics and the only way to stop this flood is by turning off the taps. And for masks, this means promoting the use of reusable masks wherever appropriate.” *Mark Smith is a journalist and author from the UK. He has written on subjects ranging from business and technology to world affairs, history, and popular culture for the Guardian, BBC, Telegraph, and magazines in the United States, Europe, and Southeast Asia.

By Mark Smith* From pizza boxes to the blood of people living in remote arctic communities, there is a type of substance all around us raising serious concern over its impact on our health. To make matters worse, it may never go away. While there may be a growing awareness of how we are increasingly surrounded by all-too-visible environmentally damaging plastic pollution, we are also in the midst of a potential danger we cannot see. They are called PFAS. Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, collectively called PFAS, are a group of over 4,700 types of chemicals that, since the 1940s, have been manufactured and used in a whole range of everyday products, such as non-stick cookware, stain-resistant clothing, cosmetics, food packaging, as well as firefighting foam. However, PFAS chemicals have increasingly found their way from the products they were designed to enhance into the wider ecosystem, the food and water chains, animals, and people. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Prevention’s National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey found that PFAS are present in the blood of 97% of Americans. Now, there is growing concern about their potential health impact. According to Julie Schneider of the CHEM Trust campaign group, “PFAS pollution is ubiquitous in the environment and humans, being found across the world including in Arctic air, snow, wildlife, and human blood and breastmilk.” What makes them even more concerning from an environmental and health standpoint is that once PFAS are there, they virtually never go away. They do not break down naturally and some can take over 1,000 years to degrade, earning PFAS the moniker “forever chemicals.” PFAS Infiltrate Global Ecosystems What gives PFAS their unique, manmade properties is their molecular composition. In their most basic form, they are essentially a chain of linked carbon and fluorine atoms. The bond between carbon and fluorine is one of the strongest in nature, which means these types of chemicals simply do not degrade. Their stability enables them to repel things like oil, heat, and water. From a manufacturing standpoint, that can be hugely beneficial, but from an environmental one, their longevity poses a major challenge. As you might expect with chemicals which are in widespread use, it is extremely difficult to ensure they do not end up where they are not supposed to be, whether that is in our bodies, the food chain, rivers, or oceans. PFAS are found in water, air, fish, and soil at locations across the US and the globe. In fact, they have even been found on Mount Everest and in Arctic Sea Ice. PFAS can be released into the environment all too easily, at virtually every stage of their life cycle, through dust, air, food, water or soil. Whether they are spilled during the manufacturing process of a product into a water system, transferred from food packaging onto the food we put into our bodies, or when firefighting foam ends up in the sewers and eventually in the oceans, they can end up almost anywhere. Once they are in the water, getting rid of them is very difficult. Some treatment plants can use activated carbon which can filter out some of the PFAS and other contaminants, but not all of them. The process can also be time-consuming and expensive. Once they escape into the food chain and wider environment, they can move around the world. PFAS are found in water, air, fish, and soil at locations across the US and the globe. In fact, they have even been found on Mount Everest and in Arctic Sea ice. PFAS Studies Suggest Alarming Health Risks Uncertainty still surrounds the full potential health impact of PFAS, but what little is known is increasingly causing alarm in the scientific community. According to the CDC, research suggests that exposure to some PFAS can cause cancer, increased cholesterol levels, liver damage, thyroid disease and impact the immune system. Other studies suggest some PFAS can cause developmental problems in children, lower a woman’s chance of getting pregnant, and disrupt hormone levels. Because the spread of PFAS is not limited by geography, they have been found in people all over the world, from the breast milk of Norwegian mothers to the blood of Inuit communities in the Arctic. Even more concerningly, unborn babies can also be exposed to PFAS through umbilical cord blood from their mothers during pregnancy, while newborns can be exposed through breast milk or through formula made with water that contains PFAS. Global Efforts to Stop PFAS Pollution Are Just a Start Fears about the impact of PFAS has prompted some action. In October 2021, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a strategic roadmap, setting out its plans up until 2024 to address the issue of PFAS pollution. The strategy is based around three central objectives: investment in research, restricting the release of PFAS into the environment, and accelerating the clean-up of contamination. The strategy aims to place responsibility for limiting exposures and addressing contamination onto companies that produce PFAS. It also aims to speed up the deployment of treatment, remediation, destruction, disposal, and mitigation technologies for PFAS. The EPA is also creating a plan for new national drinking water standards for two types of PFAS—PFOA and PFOS—and is bringing in rules to prevent companies from dumping PFAS into waterways. There will also be a national testing strategy and a study of PFAS in fish. “The casual use of highly persistent and harmful chemicals must stop if we are to safeguard the health of future generations and protect wildlife and the wider environment.” –Dr. Julie Schneider of CHEM Trust In other parts of the globe, governments have also announced further action. In April 2021, the Canadian Departments of Environment and of Health issued a notice of intent to address PFAS. In 2020, the European Commission (the executive branch of the European Union) announced a plan to phase out the use of PFAS unless they were proven to be essential for the application they were designed for. Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, and Norway have also announced that they will submit a restriction proposal for PFAS to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) by July 2022, a move which is seen as the first step towards a ban. However, campaign groups like the CHEM Trust are calling for tougher action. Schneider says, “These very persistent PFAS chemicals have no place in everyday consumer products that may only be used for a short time and then thrown away. The casual use of highly persistent and harmful chemicals must stop if we are to safeguard the health of future generations and protect wildlife and the wider environment. Companies must clean up their act immediately.” Reducing Exposure in the Developing World While developed nations may gradually be committing to tackling the issue, another challenge is emerging in countries where the health and science sectors are not as well equipped to test and monitor the proliferation of the chemicals and where governments both local and national often do not have the finances or resources to impose protective legislation. People living in developing countries face a perfect storm of problems when it comes to PFAS. One problem is that they are still subject to the fallout from these “forever chemicals” even if they do not live near any manufacturing sites. The second problem is that, where PFAS are manufactured and used, there is often even less regulation and monitoring than had been present in more developed countries. This was brought into sharp focus in a study published in 2019, which found that PFAS water pollution was abundant in developing nations in Asia and the Middle East. Contained in that report, were some truly stark figures. In Malaysia, for example, a drinking water source used by 6 million people, tested significantly over the PFAS regulatory limits in the United States. In Indonesia, PFAS levels in the Jakarta Bay were ten times higher than the record high recorded in the San Francisco Bay area. If people living in developing nations are to be spared from the potentially damaging impact of PFAS, it seems clear that a global approach is needed for what is, due to its very nature, a global problem. While developed nations may have the resources and financial muscle to devote to tackling the problem head on, concerns remain around how developing countries can protect their citizens from a potential health hazard which impacts even the unborn. A hazard which, if we do not find a way to deal with it, could be around for literally the next thousand years. Schneider advocates for a ban on all non-essential uses of PFAS chemicals. “Every year of delay in regulating this group of ‘forever chemicals’ increases the pollution burden. Some PFAS emitted today could still be present in the environment in several centuries. A ban on all non-essential uses of PFAS chemicals should be urgently implemented.” *Mark Smith is a journalist and author from the UK. He has written on subjects ranging from business and technology to world affairs, history, and popular culture for the Guardian, BBC, Telegraph, and magazines in the United States, Europe, and Southeast Asia.

By Mark Smith* To many people, the world they live in feels more polarized than ever. From vaccines and gun control to pretty much everything in-between, the public square can often feel more divided than ever. But is that actually the case? The environment is unquestionably one of today’s most pressing—and polarizing—issues. But recent studies indicate that this may not be the case with the general public. Instead, at least where the environment is concerned, the divide appears to be largely driven by activists and the politically minded. Could it be that the partisanship that is so prevalent in politics spills over into wider issues of the environment and the climate change agenda, prompting people to feel the need to “pick a side” in the debate? This is certainly what some believe—and the ramifications for the climate change agenda could be profound. The Public View on Climate Change While the perception around the climate change debate may be that it is deeply divisive, in reality, the figures do not bear that out. In fact, the Pew Research Center found that the majority of Americans are in broad agreement on the subject, with nearly two-thirds stating that protecting the environment should be a top priority for the President and Congress, a big increase since 2011. A majority of Americans (63%) also said that stricter environmental regulations were worth the cost. But dig down into the numbers, and the impact of politics begins to reveal itself. The same research found that 71% of Democrats said policies aimed at reducing climate change generally provide net benefits for the environment, compared with roughly a third of Republicans (34%). The Political Picture In Washington, the gap between how the two parties vote on climate change was not always a chasm, but it grew significantly during the Trump Administration. Despite the two main parties voting along similar lines in previous decades, they began to diverge in the 1990s. According to an analysis by the nonpartisan League of Conservation Voters (LCV), during President Donald Trump’s time in the White House, Democrats in Congress voted for pro-environment legislation 92% of the time on average, compared with 5% for Republicans. Divisiveness Driven by Elites? The impact of those divides at the very top of politics filters down to ordinary Americans but, in a bizarre kind of symbiosis, ordinary people from the fringes of the debate also influence public opinions. These fringes are often shaped by vocal broadcasters, thought leaders, and media outlets. A study authored by Leaf Van Boven, a professor of psychology and neuroscience at the University of Colorado, and David K. Sherman, professor in the University of California-Santa Barbara’s Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, found that public attitudes about climate policy are shaped, at least in part, by these elites. The research also found that—perhaps not surprisingly—people were more likely to share the environmental stance of those that shared their general politics rather than take the opposite view. Crucially, the research found that the impact of these political elites, in terms of how it caused polarization, presented a barrier to tackling climate change. "Research found that the impact of political elites, in terms of how it caused polarization, presented a barrier to tackling climate change." Their report said: “Central to the information deficit and related models is that public opinion should be based on unbiased integration of available scientific evidence. “Yet recent findings demonstrate that, in the absence of probative information, signals from politicians, thought leaders, and other political elites can strongly influence public attitudes about climate policy.” “Ordinary people weigh the stances of political elites to such an extent that they sometimes place ‘party over policy.’” The Politics of Division But what drives this polarization in politics and how does it impact the environment? A 2018 paper, also partly authored by Van Boven and Sherman, delved deeper into just why and how partisanship reared its head and divided people along political lines. They found that the results of a national panel experiment and in-depth interviews with four former members of Congress suggested that Democrats and Republicans—both ordinary citizens and policymakers—supported policies from their own party and reactively devalued policies from the opposing party. Their paper found that these partisan views occurred both for policies historically associated with liberal principles and politicians as well as for conservative principles and politicians. Put simply, while many people may have similar underlying views on environmental issues, once politics enters the mix, they often feel compelled to “pick a side” and reject the other side’s view, simply on principle. This can result in people gravitating towards a particular view they feel aligns with their chosen party. Origins of Discord The causes of polarization have deep-rooted social and economic causes, with divisive rhetoric and media coverage often shouldering most of the blame. But experts believe a big part of the problem resides in the way party politics in the United States itself is structured. In his 2018 book, Responsible Parties: Saving Democracy from Itself, Yale political science professor Ian Shapiro argued that polarization on both right and left has been fed by the increasing number of “safe” seats for both parties in the Senate and House. For many candidates, this has meant that the only vote worth winning is in the primary—and this has resulted in candidates moving towards the fringes of issues for fear of being knocked off in the primary. "Primaries are often marked by very low turnout and people on the fringes are disproportionately voting in them, with the same being the case of caucuses." Shapiro explained that primaries are often marked by very low voter participation rates—and people with strong views tend to vote disproportionately in them. One example he cited was the Tea Party’s successes after 2009, which were driven by candidates who won very low-turnout primaries (for example, 12% to 15% voter participation in some congressional districts). The same was true in some Democratic primaries, such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s upset win over incumbent Democrat Rep. Joe Crowley with an 11% turnout in New York’s 14th congressional district. With the fringes of politics having more of a say on which candidates win their primaries and then make it to Washington, the risk becomes that their voices on issues, including climate change, are the ones that become the loudest. Meanwhile, the wider, more moderate views that may be broadly aligned—regardless of political party affiliation—are ignored as they simply do not win enough votes. Perception Is Key A paper written by Van Boven and others in 2015 said that while polarization was real, the extent of that polarization was often exaggerated. Analyzing thirty years of data, they found that Americans “consistently overestimate polarization between attitudes of Democrats and Republicans.” Those that perceived the greatest polarization were also the more likely to be politically active. Their report found: “We suggest that people perceive greater political polarization when they (a) estimate the attitudes of those categorized as being in the ‘opposing group’; (b) identify strongly as either Democrat or Republican; and (c) hold relatively extreme partisan attitudes—particularly when those partisan attitudes align with their own partisan political identity.” This perceived polarization could be a factor in how people “pick a side.” They assume their party affiliation would have a particular stance on climate change, and they feel compelled to adopt it accordingly. Real-world Impact So, in the real world, how can this have an impact on the climate change agenda? Van Boven et al.’s paper, “Psychological Barriers to Bipartisan Public Support for Climate Policy,” cited the case of Rep. Bob Inglis who was elected in a heavily Republican district in South Carolina. During his first congressional stint, he was a vocal skeptic of man-made climate change. However, during his second congressional stint, he was persuaded by family members to publicly acknowledge the reality of climate change. Having previously opposed a cap-and-trade climate policy, he proposed an alternative revenue-neutral carbon tax—and was beaten in the 2010 primaries by a Tea Party conservative. The implications were clear: Break with party orthodoxy on climate change at your peril. Hope for the Future? Despite the deep fault lines that run through modern American politics, Democrats and Republicans have proven capable of putting differences aside in the search for consensus on environmental issues. The Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Act of 2021, which authorized the investment of over $35 billion over five years in US drinking water infrastructure, was passed in the Senate by a vote of 89–2. In their research, Van Boven and his coauthors also said there was the possibility that these “polarized elite” may one day lose public support should leaders emerge who could reduce the polarization in public attitudes about climate change. *Mark Smith is a journalist and author from the UK. He has written on subjects ranging from business and technology to world affairs, history, and popular culture for the Guardian, BBC, Telegraph, and magazines in the United States, Europe, and Southeast Asia.

By Mark Smith* The battle against COVID-19 has given rise to a new era of global scientific cooperation, with vaccines and antiviral treatments being created at unprecedented speeds. But amidst all the radical new developments, work has been underway to repurpose a natural treatment known for centuries—Artemisia annua, also known as sweet wormwood. In 2020, controversy arose when Madagascar President Andry Rajoelina announced that the African island nation was promoting a drink containing artemisia plant extracts to combat coronavirus. The World Health Organization quickly rejected that idea, saying there was no proof of artemisia’s effectiveness. But a team of scientists set about trying to understand if one of the plant’s ingredients could indeed have an impact. They were astounded by the results. Early promise In May 2021, researchers from Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI), Columbia University, and the University of Washington found that extracts from the leaves of the Artemisia annua (A. annua) plant, a medicinal herb also known as sweet wormwood, inhibited the replication of the COVID-19 virus and two of its variants. Artemisia annua has been studied extensively and used safely for more than 2,000 years in traditional medicine—particularly in China—to treat a variety of fever-related ailments, as well as relieve pain. The active ingredient found in the dried leaves of Artemisia annua is called artemisinin and works against malaria. But strangely, the team found that extracts of the plant were more effective when artemisinin levels were low, indicating that it may be another of the plant’s so-far-unidentified compounds that was fighting the virus. One of the team members, WPI Biology and Biotechnology Prof. Pamela Weathers, has long studied different strains of artemisia, which are grown around the world. She told The Earth & I that it was a research paper from 2005 about Artemisia annua’s effectiveness against SARS—another coronavirus which spread throughout the Far East in 2002—that originally piqued her interest. “I knew that Artemisia annua had a lot of antiviral activity from prior reports that focused on artemisinin,” she said. “I searched the literature to see if there were any reports of anti SARS-CoV activity. There was one indicating efficacy.” Due to the COVID-19 lockdowns at the time, getting back in the lab to start testing their theories was easier said than done for the team. “We got permission to reopen our lab to prepare extracts for testing,” she said. “All labs had been closed as a pandemic precaution. Two alumni from WPI connected us with the Columbia University Aaron Diamond Research Center where virus testing could be done. That lab works on nasty viruses like HIV and SARS-CoV-2.” Once back in the lab, the researchers gathered dried leaves of A. annua from four continents, soaked them in hot water, and tested the solutions against the original SARS-CoV-2 and two variants originating from the United Kingdom and South Africa. Some leaf samples were twelve years old, but they were still effective against the virus. Researchers also tested artemisinin alone against the viruses, but they found that the plant extracts were more potent. Artemisinin is a compound naturally produced by the plant, but is usually extracted, chemically modified, and developed in combination with other drugs to treat malaria. Results showed that the extracts of A. annua did not block the virus from entering cells, but they could interfere with the virus’ ability to replicate, thus killing it. Prof. Weathers said the team members were “elated” when they first saw the results, especially since early results were underwhelming. “Our first results were less than enthusiastic,” she said. “We made methylene chloride extracts of the plant, and when we tested it against the virus, there were toxic effects on the cells as well as the virus.” The team speculated that this effect was probably from the solvent needed to dissolve the extracts. After a few more tests, the team decided to switch to a hot water extract. That is the way the plant was, and still is, used as a traditional medicine, and they thought that method could eliminate toxicity to the cells. The hot water method worked. “There was essentially no cell toxicity but powerful antiviral activity. We were elated!” Prof. Weathers said. Although they do not yet know exactly how or what in A. annua makes it so effective, they know that not only does it stop the virus replicating but it is also effective against COVID-19 variants, including delta and omicron. The hot water (extraction) method worked. “There was essentially no cell toxicity but powerful antiviral activity. We were elated!” Prof. Weathers said. The extracts further help subdue inflammation and alleviate the often-deadly “cytokine storm” that can happen with COVID-19. Yet another finding is that the extracts can blunt fibrosis, also known as fibrotic scarring, which damages organs and tissue. Fibrosis can occur during a long viral infection and is implicated in “long COVID,” the name given to a range of new, returning or ongoing health problems that can follow an acute COVID-19 infection. Impact of the Study Despite the team’s exciting findings, the general response was mixed, said Prof. Weathers. “We thought [our results] would be quickly explored further, tested in human clinical trials, and could provide a very cost-effective means to halt the virus,” she said. “We have been sadly disappointed in the response to our studies.” Generally, when the public hears of our work, it is “very enthusiastic,” she said. “The medical community that is in tune with alternative medicine is also very interested, but they have little to no power.” There has been some interest from academia, she said, and “I have no clue if anyone in the political sphere even knows about it.” But the responses from public health agencies, health care leaders and drug manufacturers were virtual silence. “There is little to no interest by modern medicine, which is more connected to the pharmaceutical industry,” said Prof. Weathers. One possible reason to shun “sweet wormwood” as a treatment for COVID-19 was the flood of “colorful” stories about cures for COVID-19, she said. “There were many crank cures touted early in the pandemic. That really hurt us in terms of anyone giving our work with a medicinal plant a more serious look.” But she suspects the lack of apparent profitability is a bigger reason to ignore Artemisia annua as a treatment for COVID-19. “This is a simple approach for treating a horrible disease; it is unlikely that any pharmaceutical company would look at it and develop it further,” she said. “There is no profit in it for them, and our health care systems are intimately tied to the pharmaceutical companies and profits, not inexpensive cures.” Future Plans Currently, the team is awaiting word from the National Institutes of Health about a small grant to help identify what in the plant makes it so potent. If funded, they hope that data they obtain will better inform and convince others to fund a larger clinical trial in humans. Elsewhere, the World Health Organization has announced a trial of Artesunate—a derivative of artemisinin—and two other drugs on hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Meanwhile, Prof. Weathers cautioned that, despite Artemisia annua’s apparent impact on COVID-19 during the tests, “it is not a vaccine.” Instead, its role is “to be used in conjunction with vaccination or to buy time to get populations vaccinated.” *Mark Smith is a journalist and author from the UK. He has written on subjects ranging from business and technology to world affairs, history, and popular culture for the Guardian, BBC, Telegraph, and magazines in the United States, Europe, and Southeast Asia.