In his article ‘Environment and the unborn’ (January 10), Tony Mifsud quotes the recommendation, in a 2009 WHO environment and health performance report, that children and adolescents should be given priority in the context of environment and health. This is indisputable.
As pointed out by Mifsud, drugs and tobacco before and during pregnancy, alcohol misuse and chemical and, not least, toxic emissions in the air, cause physical and mental injuries to millions of people before and after birth.
A hazard to the unborn not mentioned in the WHO report is that arising out of the early exposure of mothers to a particular class of toxins in traffic emissions referred to as ‘polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons’ (PACs). These are believed to be the cause of certain cancers in adults that can be traced back to the environmental exposure of their mother to PACs.
The damage occurs in such a way that parents pass on to their offspring an ‘environmental heritage’ that causes disease later on in their adult life, thus raising the worrying possibility of serious delayed trans-generational health impacts. Such transmission is worrying because, besides being delayed, is also ‘silent’, meaning that the parent experiences no effect or ill health as a result of the exposure. Such a mechanism has been implicated, for instance, in the causation of breast cancer.
Mifsud’s article and the above all go to further emphasise that lifestyle-related factors, such as the pollution we cause through our over-dependence on fossil-fuel driven private transport, is a significant source of harm to future generations.
Also, if contemporary humanity, on a global scale, con-tinues to rip carbon out from beneath the earth and liberating it into the planet’s atmosphere at an unsustainable rate, we will in all likelihood cause untold hardship – even annihilation – to our descendants through climate change.
This WHO report also reminds Malta that overweight and obesity, especially in children, is a major public health concern. Again, the chief suspect here is our addiction to the car, as a result of which our children continue to become conditioned to unhealthy passive mobility by car. The WHO report rightfully states inter alia that road traffic is one of Malta’s high national concerns and lists urban outdoor air pollution and lack of phy-sical activity among Malta’s major concerns.
While the education sector might be doing a good job by emphasising healthy nutrition among the young, little is being done to effectively promote physical activity or healthy mobility. Transport Malta’s obsession with improving motor traffic continues unabated; this is negatively affecting the physical environment in such a way as to make walking a disagreeable experience for all.
WHO recognises that cardiovascular diseases are the main causes of death in Malta, followed by cancer and respiratory problems. Moreover, deaths from these and other non-communicable causes of death are higher than the European Union average in some age groups. To this, WHO adds the high prevalence among asthma in Maltese children.
Again, physical inactivity and traffic pollution consequent upon our excessive car dependence are implicated in the causation of these disorders. They also create a time bomb of premature death among growing children.
While it is encouraging that Transport Malta’s declared that its major objective is to improve the country’s public transport, it was disappointing to read (MaltaToday, August 11) that the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure indicated that high priority will continue to be given to “nation-wide creation of more parking facilities and implementation of traffic management schemes”, a policy that will only serve to intensify Malta’s lethal car dependency by facilitating private motor traffic.
Such a policy goes against every conceivable modern approach aimed at encouraging healthy lifestyles and non-polluting transport.
The essence of all this was succinctly put as follows by Fred Kent, founder of the Project for Public Spaces: “If you plan cities for cars and traffic you get cars and traffic; if you plan for people and places, you get people and places.” To this end, progressive countries are redesigning the public realm for people rather than motor vehicles, thereby making them safer and healthier for children, pedestrians and cyclists, while creating conditions that promote healthier lifestyles.
WHO specifically emphasises this with regard to Malta in the following key sentence: “[Malta’s] current main strategy builds on strengthening alternatives to private transport rather than taking more stringent measures to reduce car use… [Malta’s] predominant approach is to consider the minimum number of parking spaces required at the workplace rather than restricting the number of parking places to encourage the use of alter-native means of transport as well as walking and cycling where possible.”
And finally: “Walking needs to be especially more strongly promoted [in Malta] as a convenient and healthy mode of transport.”
Of course, this continues to fall on deaf ears.
As a supposedly children-loving nation, we should take this to heart but we don’t. We care little about these matters as long as we can continue to enjoy today’s comfortable prodigal way of life. Our children and grandchildren will pay dearly for this.