Lisa Owen interviews scientist and The Edge of Life author Mike Berridge
Leading NZ scientist says “we’ve certainly gone too far” with our cleanliness obsession and science has proved that it’s
causing higher allergy and asthma rates
Says this is particularly important for infants because “by the time you’re two, you’re locked in.”
“If we clean things too much, if we don’t expose kids to the environment, if we don’t expose them to foods that,
perhaps, we’re allergic to, then those kids will carry on with the health problems that we have.”
Caesarsean sections shouldn’t be overused as there is an “enormous difference” in the allergic disease rates of
countries who have who have high C-section rates
Says that we are taking too many antibiotics because people are demanding them from doctors and should be told “live
your life normally and get over it”.
“We've become a medicated society, and we need to let our bodies do the work; to use medicine much more discerningly.”
Berridge: Modelling and work done in countries like Mexico suggests that a 20% sugar tax in NZ would reap a $30 million
health benefit.
Owen: So you personally would think that would be worth trying?
Berridge: So I think there is value in thinking that is less negative feeling about something we now know conclusively
is bad for our health because it's just an instant rush of sugar into the blood, raising our blood-sugar levels and
predisposing us, if you do it again and again, to diseases like type II diabetes.
Lisa Owen: Welcome back. Let's start with a list.. sugar taxes…fluoridation…overuse of antibiotics...
vaccination…allergies.. who in their right mind would want to wade into these most heated of debates? Our next guest,
that's who. Professor Mike Berridge is a leading international cancer researcher and a distinguished research fellow
working at the Malaghan Institute of Medical Research. He's the author of a new book by our friends at Bridget Williams
books called ‘The Edge of Life’. Mike Berridge is in the studio with me. Good morning.
Mike Berridge: Hi, Lisa.
Why have you written this book? Is it because you’re fed up with the myths and the pseudoscience that we seem to be
seeing everywhere?
No. It’s really because there’s an issue with knowledge. We carry out our experiments; we work in laboratories; we
generate knowledge. That knowledge accumulates, but that knowledge doesn’t always filter through very effectively to the
public. And that communication gap, I think, is something that needs to be addressed. So this book, really, was a way of
communicating some science and getting people to think about the science, bring science into… put science on an equal
basis with people’s points of views.
So make us better informed? Let’s talk about some of the issues that you looked at. Cleanliness – well, science has
given us better hygiene and sanitation, but do you think that we’ve gone too far, and what are the consequences of that?
Yeah, we’ve certainly gone too far, and this starts very early in life when children are very young. We need to be
exposed to our environment. You might think of it very much as a vaccination, as a tolerisation to our environment. And
that process is necessary. If we clean things too much, if we don’t expose kids to the environment, if we don’t expose
them to foods that, perhaps, we’re allergic to, then those kids will carry on with the health problems that we have. So
we’ve got to rethink the way in which we are addressing some of these health issues, and exposure to a wide range of
environmental things, to food, are going to have massive effects on allergies, allergic… respiratory allergic problems
and food allergies.
You talk about kids there. How important are those early years, and what years are you talking about?
Yeah, right from when… There’s a movement at the moment to get kids eating food, I think – at least exposed to food. It
doesn’t really matter whether they’re eating the food, but exposed at a very early age, perhaps 6, 9 months. And
certainly between 1 and 2 years is one of the periods in child development when the immune system is developing
massively, as it does in the first year as well, and we need to ensure that we make the maximum use of that
early-lifehood exposure, because that stays with us for life. By the time you’re 2, you’re locked in.
So the time has passed? Under 2s, what are you saying to parents, then? It’s OK for your kids to eat a bit of dirt and
roll around in the mud?
Outside, things that you ingest are in fact working to tolerise you, to make you resistant to whatever that infectious
organism is. Our bodies are covered in bacteria. We have more bacteria in our bodies than we have human cells. And we
need to learn how to live with these bacteria. We’ve never thought of it much in the past. We’ve just regarded them as
baggage, if you like. We’ve got a few million or billion of them in our bodies, and they do their thing, and it’s always
been thought that they are important for complex carbohydrate digestion. That’s what these bugs do. But, no, those bugs
are important in virtually every aspect of our health and wellbeing, and it’s the development of our immune system, our
metabolism and the functioning of our brain all involve our getting on with and nurturing our microbes as well as, what
we think of as, our human being.
It goes right back to birth, though, doesn’t it? Because you talked about the fact that we have very high rates of
Caesars here – 25% of births by Caesarean section – and that is lowering kids’ immunity, so do we need to limit the
number of C-sections?
Yes, that’s a discussion that is ongoing at the moment and certainly there are some countries that have far too many.
50% in China and Brazil is very very high. The Netherlands has a very low level, and we can see enormous differences in
allergic diseases between those with the highest and those with the lowest levels of C-sections.
So do we need to take action here around that?
C-section is important. It’s a medical procedure, and we use it when it’s appropriate. We just should be careful that we
don’t overuse it, but that’s a discussion between the public and the medical profession.
Well, when you’re saying that lack of exposure to parasites and germs in childhood suppresses the immune system and
that’s why we have high asthma rates and high allergy rates, can we say that now for sure? Has science actually proved
that now?
Yes, it has. It’s proved it in a number of different ways, not only in experiences with humans and with people that have
particular diseases, but in animal models that have replicated the issues that microbial exposure is extremely
important. If you raise, for example, a mouse in a sterile environment, that mouse has enormous problems. It just will
not survive. In fact, you can’t survive without your microbes.
So, there’s been much discussion in our office about this. The five-second rule for eating food off the floor is fine,
and maybe we should actually stay a bit dirty like the guy in the news this week who hasn’t had a shower for 12 years.
Yeah, don’t overdo the cleanliness thing. We tend to follow advertising, promotion, there’s a new gadget we’ve innovated
in some area to make things more cleaner, but do we really need all of this?
So you think—?
The view from a health point of view is that we need to minimise that. It’s still important. We need to drink clean
water. We need to know that water is clean. We need to have a certain level of cleanliness, but don’t overdo it.
So do you think advertising has played a big part in this? Because when you turn on the TV, you see the wipes and the
sprays all the time.
Yeah, yeah, very much. Business and profit drive a lot of the issues. Those make money, they build the economy, but we
need to make decisions about where the boundaries are, what’s of benefit to us as humans in terms of our health and
where that interfaces with the business model.
I want to talk about sugar now. You talk about the likes of Coke, because priming— And I mean Coca-Cola is priming young
people for a suite of health problems later in life. So should there be restrictions on that kind of product like they
are on tobacco?
Yes, that's coming. That's a discussion again that's ongoing in the community, whether that takes the form of attacks,
whether it takes the form of other measures. Public education is something that will evolve over time, but—
As a scientist, though, what's your view? Personally, what's your view on whether there should be attacks on those kinds
of foods?
I think attacks, the evidence, and the modelling that's been done has suggested... and work that's ongoing in countries
like Mexico would suggest — although the end results aren't in yet — suggest that a 20% tax in New Zealand would have,
according to the modellers, something like a $30 million benefit to New Zealand in terms of health.
So you personally would think that would be worth trying?
So I think there is value in thinking that is less negative feeling about something we now know conclusively is bad for
our health because it's just an instant rush of sugar into the blood, raising our blood-sugar levels and predisposing
us, if you do it again and again, to diseases like type II diabetes.
So where does personal choice come into it, though? You know, where does—? Because people always talk about nanny state,
and what about moderation and personal choice?
Well, of course, you have personal choice. But personal choice is very much dictated by advertising and particularly
advertising to young kids, who become locked into certain ways of thinking to processed foods. My view on all of this is
if your body has to work hard, it's good for you. In other words, with regard to food, if you have to chew it, if you
have to digest it, if it doesn't go straight into your bloodstream, it's going to be better for you than something that
you don't have to work to get the benefit out of.
We've only got a little bit of time left, but I really want to ask you about medication. You say that we're
over-medicated, including using antibiotics. Well, you can't get those things without doctor's prescription. So if we
don't need them, why are doctors giving them to us?
Doctors are giving them to us because people ask for them. People demand. People don't like going to the doctor and
coming away with just advice. Well, just... live your life normally and get over it. That's not what people go to a
doctor for. The medical profession realises this. They are taking measures. They know that not only antibiotics but many
other medications are over-prescribed. We've become a medicated society, and we need to let our bodies do the work; to
use medicine much more discerningly. To use when it's needed. Not to use it on demand.
All right. Thank you very much for joining me this morning, Professor Mike Berridge.
ENDS