Before any more "How silly, he had to make the iron look appealing to get people to do something healthy" comments arise, I invite readers to consider how many of you have paid $15 or more for a BPA-free glass/stainless steel/double-walled plastic reusable water bottle. Did you really need that over a simple plastic water bottle? Or a cup? My guess would be no. But you did it because you're trying to get yourself to drink more water, and perhaps that requires getting a vessel that looks or feels aesthetically pleasing to use habitually.
Disclaimer: I bought an Ello glass bottle from Target less than 48 hours ago for this very purpose--to make myself drink more water. I don't consider shaping iron into the shape of a fish all that different.
Or put a completely different way: Why would the people of Cambodia trust their government if they came out and said you should put some iron stuff in your pots?
This would be from one of the few governments on earth that are less trustworthy than the average american one. Perception-wise or in reality, does it matter? Anyway, this is an angle americans should be able to identify with. :)
>This would be from one of the few governments on earth that are less trustworthy than the average american one.
Really? If you were to make a list of all governments on the planet, you would place the federal government lower than most governments on the planet? Maybe if you limit your list to western Europe.
I agree with your general sentiment that the U.S. is too high on his list of untrustworthy nations, but at the same time, it's not like we haven't intentionally poisoned large groups of people in the past.
United States (America) as a whole trust companies (I don't get it) more than their government. So most think of the US Government as fundamentally flawed.
We've got lots of hard proven facts on a lot of topics, like vaccinations. People still don't get their kids vaccinated, and then we get outbreaks where kids die from the measles.
Perception can easily outweigh facts for a lot of people. If we could find a way to trick people into vaccinating their kids we would use it.
The attitude of "they're just stupid people who don't know better" is kind of disgusting when we've got college and university educated people exhibiting the exact same behaviour. Who's dumber? The person that doesn't know better or the person who should know better, because I think it's the latter.
So to all the people who think these are just stupid people. If the US government had exterminated 70 million Americans three decades ago, would you be giving your kids a single vaccine? Or would you expect it to be part of another genocide campaign?
The attitude of "they're just stupid people who don't know better" is kind of disgusting when we've got college and university educated people exhibiting the exact same behaviour.
I have no trouble saying that college and university educated people who choose to not vaccinate their kids are stupid people.
AFAIK this is not a government program, it's being done by an NGO. I've seen this story pop up a few times in the last months, but after four years in Cambodia I've yet to see one, probably because it's a rural program.
Yes, the Cambodian government has problems, some very big problems. But there are some VERY good people in a number of ministries who really do care about helping people, and they are trying the best they can in a difficult place with little infrastructure, high levels of corruption (both in government and in NGOs here), a lack of basic education and literacy and no funding. Despite all of that things are getting better every year.
If life was improving as quickly in the States as it is in Cambodia, I would actually consider moving back to the States. I honestly don't see that ever happening....
Thanks for the link, I put in $45. Shipping the fish to supporters was a great idea, because we can show them to friends, and promote the project.
This is the kind of project that I wish more researchers and activists would do, as it has the potential to improve the lives of a large number of individuals in a meaningful way, as well as giving other people who are far away the means to help.
I'm confused. (It easily happens). How does adding an iron (Fe) object to a cooking pot increase intake of iron ions (Fe 2+). Note that I am saying Fe(2+) intake. As I understand it, haemoglobin has an Fe(2+) ion trapped in it's structure. This is required for the uptake of oxygen molecules (O2) from the lungs, carrying it in the blood stream and releasing it at sites where there is an oxygen deficit. This is a long way of saying that Fe (2+) is utilised by the body, not Fe. If this is unclear, think in terms of sodium. We use sodium ions (Na+) not sodium atoms (Na). We put NaCl on our food, not Na. Na is very reactive and would react violently with our moist skin. We know that once it loses its electron to chlorine, a similarly highly reactive element, and becomes Na+ (in combination with Cl-) it is in an unreactive form and is used by the body for propagation of impulses along nerves. Back to Fe (2+). I guess that talking about Fe is just an imprecise way of talking about our need for Fe2+. The question then in my mind is "How does the Fe added to the cooking pot become Fe(2+)?" Does it just become oxidised to iron oxide (FeO,Fe2O3, Fe3O4?). I am trying to think what would a soluble form of Fe2+. Wikipedia lists these as insoluble. Perhaps salt is required in the cooking pot and iron chloride Fe2+ Cl2- is formed. But I cannot see Fe winning in a charity tustle with sodium for the donation of it's electrons to chlorine. Maybe, the formation of iron oxides are an interim step. Who knows?
What are the local cooking pots made of? Steel and cast iron would be the cheapest, and I assume leach iron into the food. I also imagine that the surface area of the pot is much larger than that of this "lucky fish".
A quick search found this, which appears to be cast iron:
OK, I searched a bit and found an article from 2011, which appears to be the original source (free access [1]). It appears that aluminum is the most common material from which local pots were made.
In rural Asia, cast iron tends to be--relative to flimsy aluminum--too expensive, too heavy (a large percentage of those doing the cooking weigh less than 100lbs/45kg), and too poor at conducting heat and too good at absorbing it (thermal inertia), meaning that more cooking fuel is required to cook small meals in cast iron pots than in aluminum.
It wasn't until it was spun as a lucky charm that they actually deigned to use it properly. The pre-existing superstition was only a delivery method for the solution, not a result of it.
Back of napkin math says we need approx 8mg/adult/day, say we're cooking for a family of 4, we'd need 32mg of iron leached from the fish per day. I'll guess from the picture that the fish weighs about 3/4 of a pound as pure iron, or 453593mg, so it should last about 38 years at that rate. So I was off by a bit. :) Surface area would obviously reduce as it dissolved and the rate of leaching iron would underserve the family before it really began to look unfamiliar, so you'd not want to completely dissolve it. 5 years is definitely overly cautious, it should easily last 2-4x that long, but gives them a good excuse to reinforce the reasoning of the fish when a replacement is provided.
That second link leads to a paper containing this:
Results: Blood iron levels were higher in women in the iron fish plus follow-up at 3 months compared with controls, but this was not maintained. At 6 months, haemoglobin and serum iron had fallen in all groups and the proportion of anaemic women had increased.
Conclusions: This study shows that the iron ingot was effective in the short but not longer-term against IDA. Though a novel treatment option, further research is warranted to determine bioavailability of leached iron and whether or not the surface area is large enough for sufficient iron leaching.
(The third paper does not seem to mention the iron fish.)
Does this mean that the whole thing is another bogus gimmick which only survives because it’s a cute thing which first-worlders like to throw money at?
It's pretty incredible that so much effort was even necessary. The solution was there at the start - put a chunk of iron in the pot - but despite the known and obvious health benefits and miniscule amount of effort, the population simply rejected it.
"Obvious" to you, not "obvious" to them. Plus what do they "know?" That some random person from affair has turned up and told them to start eating metal? You can try to explain the benefits but without the core underpinnings that we take for granted you will have to alter the explanation to their understanding.
Which might be do-able if they're open to learning and you've contrived an explanation they can wrap their head around. However a lot of particularly older people aren't that open to learning and aren't that easily trusting of foreigners.
It is very easy to sit in our ivory tower and pretend like we, in the west, are above it but the recent measles outbreak at Disneyland would beg to differ...
That's not very empathetic. If you were brought up with no formal education, little access to information outside of your sphere, and you knew most people that lived around you on a first name basis, you too would be as distrusting of strangers.
For all you know they could be trying to poison you to steal your land. To you their stuff might be worthless (a point you made abundantly clear) but to them that stuff is their entire livelihood and everything they have worked for. Something they might wish to pass down to their kids.
Your entire little rant there just comes across arrogant and judgemental.
Fact is, xenophobia is a problem of ignorance and ignorance is far more acceptable among people who have not had the opportunity to learn better than it is among people who have. You appear to have a surprisingly simplistic attitude to life - do you also judge an illiterate toddler the same way you would an illiterate college student?
I've spent a great deal of effort trying to convince people around me to do things that are clearly healthy in the short and long-term… Eat vegetables, drink enough water, avoid artificial colors, preservatives and sweeteners, exercise proper precautions in workshops. It's futile.
I agree it's frustrating that people won't simply believe facts about how to fix their health problems when presented to them, and then are happy to embrace superstitious symbols instead of logic. But I'm not surprised, considering how many people I know who complain about the common symptoms of dehydration daily but refuse to believe that what they need to do is just drink some water... But are happy to take an Excederin with Coca Cola to mask their dehydration headache.
I understand that they are a signal that what you are about to consume has been processed, and is likely unhealthy on balance; do you see an inherent problem with these ingredients?
That one isn't the greatest example of what I was trying to say. While I avoid additives I don't really often suggest to other people that they do.
My perspective is that additives are nutritionally neutral at best, and many may be mildly harmful. So, given the choice I don't consume them. If I'm shopping I would prefer something like butter vs Blue Bonnet margarine. I don't feel convinced of the safety of chemicals like Yellow #5, and if I need for my food to be fluorescent yellow for some reason, would prefer turmeric. I consider whole foods to be better tested over time for human health than a semi-synthetic concoction.
As you say, generally the presence of synthetic colors and presevatives tells me the manufacturer has the wrong priorities (cost and surface presentation vs flavor, freshness or nutrition).
An example of food I shun is the typical grocery store tortilla. Most are loaded with presevatives so they can last on the shelves for months, which gives them a bitter taste. When I compare one of those brands, with 10-15 ingredients, most of which aren't technically food, to what I'd call normal tortilla with 4 ingredients, all of which are something someone would have in their own kitchen, and it's clear the simple tortilla wins in every way but shelf life. Since I consume my tortillas within a couple of days and am willing to keep them in the refrigerator, presevatives enhancing shelf life benefits the manufacturer and distributors, but fails to benefit me in terms of flavor and possible negative nutritional effects.
I don't know about the colors and preservatives, but there were some very surprising results recently indicating that zero-calorie sweeteners were just as bad for your weight as sugar.
> I've spent a great deal of effort trying to convince people around me to do things that are clearly healthy in the short and long-term… Eat vegetables, drink enough water, avoid artificial colors, preservatives and sweeteners, exercise proper precautions in workshops. It's futile.
Given this is all crap lucky you haven't convinced many people. This is really really bad advice at most points, nothing advice with the rest.
Even eat vegetables is meaningless. Chips are vegetables and so are potatoes which I also don't think are very healthy.
Even eat vegetables is meaningless. Chips are vegetables and so are potatoes which I also don't think are very healthy.
Potatoes would fall under the starch food group, rather than vegetables. Vegetables, in the food pyramid/food group sense, are fairly well defined based on nutritional value.
Drinking game water... Generally preferable to dehydration.
Eating vegetables, well, some are nutritionally useless and can all be prepared in unhealthy ways. However, generally eating a varied diet wih fiber and fresh vegetables is healthy for people and hats my suggestion.
Artificial colors, preservatives etc... There's no good reason to eat these ingredients and many of them ate questioned for health effects.
Exercise proper precautions on workshops means actually wear eye protection, hearing protection, and follow fire codes in a trade I am involved in.
All seem like good ideas to me, and as noted, your attitude is about what I have come to expect - pointless rejection of obviously wise courses of action.
> Artificial colors, preservatives etc... There's no good reason to eat these ingredients and many of them ate questioned for health effects.
This sort of ignorant attitude is why we have a obesity epidemic.
What do people use instead of harmless 'Artificial' colors, preservatives and sweetners because of 'superstition', they add sugar and fat. Because it's a real world, with real people not theoretical.
Even drinking water is a dangerous topic, people start to believe coke is better than nothing. Dehydration is not a scary thing, like being hungry it's normal and ok as long as it doesn't go on to long.
There's no 'superstition' about artificial colors - many are implicated in health effects and banned in countries that take that more seriously than profits.
Adequate substitutes for colors include carrots, beets, and turmeric, which don't involve fat or sugar. I don't even believe fat and sugar are harmful... They're food.
The way to avoid presevatives is to eat food that's actually fresh. This isn't difficult to do.
Coke is certainly not better than nothing - that's the sort of thing I recommend water instead of. And, the topic is chronic dehydration that leads people to complain to me of headaches, muscle aches, etc and then, as noted, be frustrated when they refuse to drink somethin hydrating. Not sure why you think dehydration is not a problem.
"Artificial colors, preservatives etc... There's no good reason to eat these ingredients"
Sure there is. Artificial colors make food more attractive, which is an important part of the esthetic experience of eating. Don't believe me? Try blending all your meals up into a gray goo and see what that does for your eating enjoyment. Nutritionally it would be the same, but esthetically you'd be eating something that looked like vomit.
Preservatives keep it from going bad, which is a major health issue in most of the world. The "no preservatives" lifestyle is a luxury that is, in general, only available to those with high-tech western lifestyles. Other than very locally and very recently, people have been eating food with loaded with preservatives (including, most prominently, salt, but also sugar, nitrates, nitrites, lactic acid, benzoates, smoke...) for a long, long time.
The alternative to artificial colors is not very good... It's either using natural colorants such as carrots, beets or turmeric, or cooking food that doesn't require coloration to appear appetizing. Typically only very low quality food devoid of nutritional value resorts to artificial coloring.
Manufacturers can choose less harmful presevatives such as vitamin E vs bha/bht, but choose not to for their own economic reasons.
I'm able to avoid presevatives because I cook a lot of good myself, from scratch. This involves cooking vs say, watching tv and is actually cheaper than processed or fast foods. Cooking rice and beans from scratch is not first world privelege - eating synthetic compounded beans from Taco Bell is, actually.
Bulk rice and beans are cheaper than prepared foods, even at Whole Foods. If you're worried about scurvy, buy a lime for 30 cents.
I don't think the food scarcity in Guatemala is relevant. Kale and carrots and dairy products can be obtained for pennies a day, and meat is subsidized and readily available in raw form.
If you want to see the other side of that, which is abundance of low quality, toxic food, check out the various odd Heath problems that are on the rise in the US such as childhood obesity, diabetes, unexplained hyperactivity and so on.
"It's pretty incredible that so much effort was even necessary. The solution was there at the start - wash your hands before treating patients" (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis)
Educated men can ignore evidence. These women likely hadn't seen real evidence, and might not even know about the periodic system. It doesn't take much intelligence to detect things that kill fast, but detecting things that kill you slowly is hard.
Also, the health benefits probably weren't obvious to these women; they just heard strangers claim there were health benefits.
I think that's harsh. Education is expensive, necessary and completely inaccessible to those people.
We say "the fish has iron in it, you need iron" because we have a basic level of education. They say "the fish is lucky, I'll put that in the pot if the community says to" because community and tradition are good proxies for safety if you do not have that education.
Also, if we miss a pay check or a grocery store trip, we're fine. If they zig when they should zag it can mean death or deprivation. We should not lightly mock choices made when the stakes are so high and the known and understood information so low.
I don't have the answer here but I know that "well, Darwin will get them" isn't it.
mmmh... Aluminium in excess inhibes enzymes, can cause colic, lost of memory, desorientation, kidney damage and even is claimed to cause dementia at long term.
So (unless this fish can float?) I understand that you are also scratching the bottom of the pan with the iron chunk and this should release a lot of more AL than before because this metal is soft.
I wonder what are the efects of using the fish in the aluminium intake of these people. They did some research about it?.
Maybe a better solution could be to make pans with some iron embedded (ring?, bottom?, cover?) but not mobile pieces.
That's a very misleading statement, the body is able to significantly reduce the amount of iron absorption through the intestines.
Non-genetic related iron overload is rarely heard of outside of dietary supplement overuse, predominantly children eating iron fortified supplements.
For an ordinary person to eat too much iron, you would have to have an exceptionally bizarre diet, especially if you're overdosing on iron via elemental iron.
The upper tolerable limit for a daily intake of iron is 45mg. To get this via sirloin steak, you would have to eat three and a half pounds a day! Or 3700 calories of steak per day.
Given that heme-iron is the most readily absorbed by the body, and that guidelines suggest vegetarians consume 1.8 times the RDI, which would suggest an 80mg upper tolerable limit for non-heme iron.
So lets take Broccoli, everyone knows that's iron rich. 2.1mg per medium stalk (1/3lb), which would amount to 7 lbs of Broccoli a day.
Food examples are great and all, but the article is about an iron block that you cook food with. Per your numbers, one would only need to consume 80mg+ per day (of the elemental) to start getting into trouble territory.
My concern is over how cooking conditions (or other factors) may affect how much iron leaches out into the food, which would cause iron overload if high enough, just like those iron fortified supplements.
I never stated that the body can't adjust the amount of iron absorbed.
I stated that iron overload, which is when one's body already has too much iron accumulated, is not well handled by the body. This is true, because the body is very poor at excreting iron in response to excessive iron levels, because iron is conserved very well (unlike, say, Vitamin C).
> The problem of iron deficiency can be solved with iron cooking pots, or pieces of iron not shaped by fish.
can be is a whole different thing from is being. Or, to use the old, tired cliche, "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink"
There are several steps to solving iron deficiency. Yes, an iron cooking pot or a plain iron pellet solves one of those steps. But the human step is every bit as important.
It's clearly not just a matter of aesthetics either - it's "a piece of iron shaped like a local river fish believed to be lucky". Sure, saying "they're dumb and should just learn to use a round pellet" makes sense from our educated western perspective. But that's completely ignorant of their deeply-ingrained cultural attitudes. When you're in a society that believes a certain kind of fish to be lucky, you can't just say "use science, idiot" and expect them to actually do what you say. As a more extreme example, remember that in Liberia, armed men broke into an Ebola clinic to free patients [0]. In cases like these, the human side of the problem is far more important than the scientific side.
What's your point? That you think the villagers are stupid? They are obviously not any more stupid than the countless other humans who risk their health for esthetic reasons, like not wearing a bicycle helmet.
Either way I think there are both more interesting and more pleasant things to say about this story than a condescending and snarky remark about the villagers. Spread some love, will ya?
Disclaimer: I bought an Ello glass bottle from Target less than 48 hours ago for this very purpose--to make myself drink more water. I don't consider shaping iron into the shape of a fish all that different.