2023-05-29 11:12:44
Physician and epidemiologist, Jean-David Zeitoun, explains in his book* that the current epidemic of industrial diseases is leading to a slow suicide of the human species, which is however in no way inevitable. This logic reflects the fact that global society is badly made. The growth of pathogenic industries is in any case enough to prove the political failure…
In your book, you warn about the drop in life expectancy. Since when is it a concern?
Although it is not the only one, life expectancy is a very significant indicator. It practically tripled in Western countries between the middle of the 18th century and the beginning of the 21st century. Since 2010, things have been less clear, especially in rich countries. In some countries, life expectancy was already falling before the Covid pandemic, especially in the United States. In other countries, it is stagnating. This decrease is also observed for other indicators such as cardiovascular mortality or infant mortality. Since the 21st century, we are beginning to see serious evidence of a decline in health.
Is France following the same trends?
In France, a slowdown in the increase in life expectancy was observed from 2010. Infant mortality has been increasing since 2012. INSEE has published data for the year 2022. They reveal stagnation or a drop in life expectancy depending on the population category compared to 2019, the last year without a pandemic.
Health began to improve with industrial development and then continued to do so with economic growth. Where we are ?
No one knows if the economic growth of the 21st century will allow an increase in health indefinitely. What can be said is that, regardless of the pandemic, there is an increase in certain chronic diseases such as cancer, diabetes or obesity which is starting to have such an impact that life expectancy is falling in the United States, which is unheard of in a so-called rich country. For decades, medicine and pharmacy managed to offset the effects of these diseases by treating them, but now we find ourselves overwhelmed. Medicine progresses, but not health. The chemical and food industries are largely responsible for this degradation. Without this necessarily being intended or without the actors of this economic growth being aware of it, it has created a disease offer…
Read also
Waves, air, water: invisible pollution
You say that supply and demand lead to the suicide of the species. Can you expand?
The thesis of the book rests on the fact that the growth of risks exists because it is itself part of economic growth. Most of these risks are direct, such as food risks, tobacco, alcohol or legal and illegal drugs. And then, there is an indirect “offer of risks” linked to pollution. Pollution that is transferred to the environment and that damages human health and ecosystems. For this offer to continue, it is necessary that someone opposite buys it, that there is a demand. This demand is the other great theme that the book tries to analyze. Demand allows supply to exist, and this is all the more pernicious since, basically, no one wants a sick society. 48% of the years of life lost or lived with an illness are due to exposure to one or more of these risks.
Among these risks, you mention ultra-processed foods (AUT). Don’t you think that citizens are warned of their dangers and take heed of them?
I do not believe. If we consider, for example, the Nutri-scores1, which can be considered a step forward, it does not take food processing into account. Estimating the amount of fructose, added products and transformations requires having done fairly extensive studies. The second obstacle is economic: poverty directly drives the purchase of toxic products. And if TUEs are not expensive, it is because they do not incorporate the expenses that they impose on society. The market is made for people to get sick. It is not made to protect them. It doesn’t matter if your computer is less sophisticated because you don’t have enough money. For food, the problem is serious. It’s like being told that your tap water is polluted according to your income. You would find that outrageous. Yet that is what happens with food.
What to do then?
Going after the risk offer. Use proven methods against other risks, i.e. regulation and taxation. It’s frowned upon, but it works. It worked against tobacco, alcohol in some countries, air pollution, etc. On the other hand, against growing risks such as in food, this has not been put in place. The growth of food risk continues its courseand obesity is on the rise in almost every country in the world.
Read also
Putting people back at the center of food – interview with Anthony Fardet
Why such a political defection?
The politicians believe that the food sector is more difficult to regulate than tobacco. We don’t have to smoke. Then they are too afraid to touch the industrial sector because they are obsessed with growth and unemployment. Their vision of the freedom of individuals and their ability to manage in a mountain of risk is erroneous. Finally, I think they underestimate the epidemiological damage risks in circulation today.
Should we go towards degrowth?
Yes, in part. If the state does not regulate through taxes, we will continue to have an increase in risks and consecutive illnesses. You also have to deal with demand, but that requires social, not individual, treatment. The phenomenon of risk dissemination makes it illusory for individuals to control their health destiny. When you have risks everywhere, asking people to avoid them is very difficult. For food as for other risks, the most effective treatment is large-scale treatment. And not letting supply thrive and hoping demand will control itself.
Do you observe the consequences of these risks in your patients?
Yes. All doctors, as well as non-doctors see them. Everyone, in his entourage, knows someone who had, not very old, colorectal cancer or pancreatic cancer, a young girl who has endometriosis or advanced puberty, a woman who is being treated for breast cancer at age 35. When school children go out, the groups include more and more obese children, whom we did not see before. The ongoing epidemiological change is not exclusively noted by physicians.
Read also
Lifestyle: substances to avoid
As far as pollution is concerned, you say that it should be up to manufacturers to demonstrate the safety of their products and not to scientists to flush out the risks…
For many chemical products placed on the market, manufacturers are not required to demonstrate their harmlessness whereas, to withdraw them, it is necessary to prove in a very solid way the fact that the product is toxic. Which is very complicated because it is always possible for manufacturers to sow doubt. The approach should be reversed: the manufacturer should only be able to market his product after having demonstrated its harmlessness. You would never take a drug that was marketed with as little evidence as chemicals are. Yet chemicals are everywhere.
How do you see the future of our species?
In the short term, this is obviously going badly. In the medium and long term, it is more difficult to say. I think people are ahead of political leaders. They do not seem aware that citizens are ready to change the current model in favor of a model where economic growth would no longer be an objective in itself. The day a leader dares to take up this challenge head-on, the citizens will follow, I’m sure, because the question is not to be richer or poorer, but to be less unhappy.
* The suicide of the species, ed. Denoel, 256 p., €20.
Under no circumstances is the information and advice offered on the Alternative Santé site likely to replace a consultation or a diagnosis formulated by a doctor or a health professional, who are the only ones able to adequately assess your state of health.
1686816174
#market #people #sick #JeanDavid #Zeitoun