The Observer view on curbing air pollution | Observer editorial

Pollution has long blighted the air that we breathe. Complaints about fumes generated by coal-burning in London were recorded as early at the 13th century. The heavy smogs that descended on the capital in the 1950s killed thousands. Governments have long attempted to regulate the pollution of our cities: in 1273, authorities introduced a prohibition on burning coal in London due to it being “prejudicial to health”.

In recent years, air pollution has become less visible, but no less deadly. The noxious oxides and particulates that are linked to higher incidence of cardiovascular and respiratory diseases and cancer may not create the pea soup of industrial times, but they are estimated to be responsible for 40,000 premature deaths a year, a public health crisis on the scale of smoking or obesity.

London breached legal annual pollution limits in just the first five days of 2017. But this is not just a problem affecting the capital: almost nine out of 10 urban areas have had levels of nitrogen dioxide above legal limits since 2010.

While no one is immune, pollution particularly affects children, whose lungs are still developing. Key culprits are diesel vehicles, followed by gas combustion from boilers and cookers.

Air pollution shares none of the intractable characteristics of problems such as climate change and microbial resistance. Unlike the latter, air pollution, on the whole, respects international borders and does not require the international treaties and agreements that can take years to hammer out.

Local action to tackle air pollution can immeasurably improve air quality: the thinktank Policy Exchange has estimated that properly investing in reducing air pollution in London would increase life expectancy for its residents by an astounding six months.

As the problem has become less detectable to the naked eye, so, it seems, has been the willingness of successive governments to do anything about it. In fact, government policy over the last 15 years has, on balance, made air pollution worse, not better. The car tax regime was rebalanced to favour diesel over petrol, because diesel vehicles used to emit lower levels of greenhouse gases and policymakers believed manufacturers would deliver cleaner diesel cars. The market share of diesel cars rocketed as consumers responded to incentives: nearly half of the new cars sold in the UK now have diesel engines.

But thanks to lax standards in European emission standard testing, the vast majority of diesel cars continue to belch out poisonous fumes far in excess of the legal limit. There is now evidence that diesel cars may even emit more carbon than petrol engines. With hindsight, incentivising consumers to buy diesel cars must surely count among one of the most counterproductive environmental policies.

Cleaning up our air is eminently achievable with the right package of measures. We need a mix of clean air zones that include charging owners of diesel vehicles to drive into densely populated urban areas, a scrappage scheme for diesel cars, a tax system that discourages owners from buying diesel and much tougher European testing.

Despite the dreadful death toll, the government has dragged its feet for seven years. It ignored the legally binding European targets on air pollution that the UK was obliged to meet by 2010 and only produced a plan when it was forced to do so after a lengthy court battle instigated by the environmental campaign group Client Earth. The plan it produced under duress was so thin that the supreme court ruled it had to produce a better one by the end of last month.

Still, the government tried to delay further, arguing that it was prevented from publishing a plan under the purdah convention that the government makes no new policy announcements before a general election. The high court ruled against the government last month. The document it finally published last Friday was rightly condemned as utterly inadequate to the task, lacking any specific proposals for tax changes or a diesel scrappage scheme. It kicks the issue into the long grass at the expense of people’s health.

The government is clearly concerned about proposing any measures that would hit diesel drivers a few weeks before the general election. Yet Thursday’s local election results show it has nothing to fear: barring an electoral earthquake, it is on course for a decisive victory. Votes before lives: that’s Theresa May’s telling choice.

The Observer view on curbing air pollution | Observer editorial

Ad linking alcohol to cancer most effective at curbing drinking, study finds

A graphic Australian advertisement that highlights the link between alcohol and cancer has been nominated by drinkers as the most effective in leading them to reconsider their alcohol intake.

The video advertisement, titled Spread, was developed and funded by the Western Australia government. It shows alcohol being absorbed into the bloodstream, spreading and causing cancerous cell mutations in the liver, bowel and throat.

Researchers led by renowned international behavioural scientist Professor Melanie Wakefield tested 83 English-language alcohol advertisements from around the world on 2,174 Australian adults who regularly consume alcohol.

Study participants ranked each advertisement on a five-point scale, with a score of “one” representing a low motivation to reduce drinking after viewing and “five” representing high motivation to reduce drinking after viewing.

Spread ranked the highest with an average score of 3.77 and was favoured across a range of groups including men, women, young and older adults, and low and high-risk drinkers.

Four out of the top 10 most effective advertisements were from Australia and of those, all were from Western Australia. The least motivating ad, from New Zealand, was titled Add Nothing, and encouraged drinking water instead of beer. The results were published on Thursday in the medical journal BMJ Open.

The McCusker Centre for Action on Alcohol and Youth gave input into the development of the highest-ranked ad. The centre’s executive officer, Julia Stafford, said Spread was successful because experts in the field had been approached for input.

“We are really pleased that the evidence base for these harm-reduction ads is building and that we are learning more about what works in designing and running them,” Stafford said.

“It is important that very careful, research-based approaches are being taken.”

According to the Cancer Council of Australia, more than 3,200 cases of cancer each year could be prevented nationally if people limited their alcohol consumption.

But the CEO of Cancel Council Victoria, Todd Harper, said the carcinogenic properties of alcohol were still widely unknown in the community.

“Our 2015 survey of Victorian men and women found that nearly half of the respondents either believed that alcohol made no difference or were not sure if it had any effect on a person’s risk of cancer,” Harper said.

“It’s worrying because alcohol is a group one carcinogen – the highest classification available. It means that there is strong evidence that alcohol causes cancer at some body sites in humans.”

He said that “every drink” increased the risk of mouth, throat, bowel, liver and female breast cancers.

This risk as well as other alcohol-related harms has prompted some public health experts and health professionals to call for plain packaging on alcohol products that warn people of their risk, similar to that used on tobacco products.

But Alcohol Beverages Australia executive director Fergus Taylor dismissed the Spread adas “off the mark” and “scaremongering”.

“The industry has long advocated for targeted measures to deal with specific areas of problem consumption and misuse, as opposed to broad-based, population-wide measures like ads that use cynical scare tactics to frighten responsible drinkers,” he said.

“These ads will just be dismissed as scaremongering by the vast majority of Australians who drink responsibly and are well aware that alcohol should be consumed in moderation.”

Taylor accused researchers of “simply demonising a product that has well-established health benefits when consumed at moderate and responsible levels”.

Evidence from the World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research identifies a causal relationship between alcohol and cancer. While any level of drinking increases cancer risk, this risk increases in line with the level of consumption.

Ad linking alcohol to cancer most effective at curbing drinking, study finds

"Global gag rule" reinstated by Trump, curbing NGO abortion services abroad

In one of a number of sharp reversals from the Obama era, Donald Trump on Monday signed an executive order banning international NGOs from providing abortion services or offering information about abortions if they receive US funding.

The rule will put thousands of international healthcare workers in the difficult position of deciding whether to continue to offer family planning care that includes abortion at the expense of a critical funding stream.

The US is the single largest donor to global health efforts, providing nearly $ 3bn toward health efforts through the United States Agency for International Development (USAid) alone. The state department and groups like the Peace Corps offer additional funding.

Many international health advocates insist that their efforts are not comprehensive without abortion services. Unsafe abortions are a major cause of maternal mortality and kill tens of thousands of women every year.

What is the ‘global gag rule’, and why does Trump support it?

“President Trump’s reinstatement of the global gag rule ignores decades of research, instead favoring ideological politics over women and families,” said Senator Jeanne Shaheen, a New Hampshire Democrat who serves on the foreign relations committee.

“We know that when family planning services and contraceptives are easily accessible, there are fewer unplanned pregnancies, maternal deaths and abortions.

“And when women have control over their reproductive health, it improves the long-term health of mothers and children and creates a lasting economic benefit.”

Trump’s signature reinstates a Reagan-era rule that was not in effect for most of the Obama administration. The order does not eliminate international aid for abortions, which is already prohibited by federal law under the Helms amendment. Rather, the gag rule takes the Helms amendment one step further by preventing NGOs from using private funds to offer abortions or even refer women to groups that provide abortions.

The gag rule also prevents health workers in foreign countries from advocating for abortion rights, which includes testifying about the impacts of illegal abortion.

The rule does not enjoy uniform support along party lines. In 2015, Senate legislation introduced by Shaheen that would have made the gag rule impossible to reinstate by executive order attracted support from several moderate Republicans.

Still, the reinstatement of the global gag rule, also known as the Mexico City policy, has been long sought by opponents of abortion rights. To their eyes, funding groups that perform or even discuss abortions is tantamount to funding the procedure.

“President Trump is continuing Ronald Reagan’s legacy by taking immediate action on day one to stop the promotion of abortion through our tax dollars overseas,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the anti-abortion political advocacy group Susan B Anthony List.

“President Trump’s immediate action to promote respect for all human life, including vulnerable unborn children abroad, as well as conscience rights, sends a strong signal about his administration’s pro-life priorities.”

Trump is not the first president to reinstate the rule after it was suspended. George W Bush signed a similar order when he entered office in 2001.

As a result, more than 20 developing countries in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East lost access to contraceptives provided by the US and many NGOs were forced to shut down or lay off staff, according to EngenderHealth, a global women’s health organization that supports abortion rights.

EngenderHealth observed the impact in three places – Kenya, Nepal and Zambia – and found that in these countries, the gag rule reduced the availability of family planning services, HIV programs and maternal and child health programs.

"Global gag rule" reinstated by Trump, curbing NGO abortion services abroad