Too clean, or not too clean: the hygiene hypothesis and home hygiene.

The 'hygiene hypothesis' as originally formulated by Strachan, proposes that a cause of the recent rapid rise in atopic disorders could be a lower incidence of infection in early childhood, transmitted by unhygienic contact with older siblings. Use of the term 'hygiene hypothesis' has led to several interpretations, some of which are not supported by a broader survey of the evidence. The increase in allergic disorders does not correlate with the decrease in infection with pathogenic organisms, nor can it be explained by changes in domestic hygiene. A consensus is beginning to develop round the view that more fundamental changes in lifestyle have led to decreased exposure to certain microbial or other species, such as helminths, that are important for the development of immunoregulatory mechanisms. Although this review concludes that the relationship of the hypothesis to hygiene practice is not proven, it lends strong support to initiatives seeking to improve hygiene practice. It would however be helpful if the hypothesis were renamed, e.g. as the 'microbial exposure' hypothesis, or 'microbial deprivation' hypothesis, as proposed for instance by Bjorksten. Avoiding the term 'hygiene' would help focus attention on determining the true impact of microbes on atopic diseases, while minimizing risks of discouraging good hygiene practice

Scientists appeal to Quebec premier Charest to stop asbestos exports to the developing world

We note that your government and the asbestos industry have successfully lobbied the Canadian government to block the listing of chrysotile asbestos as a hazardous substance under a U.N. environmental convention (the Rotterdam Convention), thus preventing the recommendation of the Convention’s expert scientific body from being implemented and thus also jeopardizing the mandate of the Convention. The Rotterdam Convention was created specifically to protect people in developing countries and countries in economic transition from being harmed by hazardous substances. It provides the basic human right of prior informed consent, requiring that countries be informed that a substance they may import is hazardous. It is extremely troubling to see Quebec instigate sabotage of a U.N. environmental convention and thus deny a basic human right that is taken for granted in Quebec itself. This obstruction helps the industry’s sales. But it brings Quebec into international disrepute. Under Canadian law, chrysotile asbestos is classified as a hazardous substance, but the Quebec government has successfully lobbied to prevent it being recognized as such under international environmental law, thus creating a double standard of protection as if some lives were less deserving of protection than others. We note that at the December 2009 Copenhagen Conference you called on Canada to show stronger commitment to implementing the UN Climate Change Convention. We ask you to show similar commitment to implementing the UN Rotterdam Convention. In light of the above disturbing facts, we appeal to you, as you are about to leave on a trade mission to India, to show the integrity and honour that the world expects of Quebec. We ask that you listen to the overwhelming evidence put forward by independent health experts, including your own Quebec health experts, and not succumb to the political lobbying of the asbestos industry. We call on you, as well as the leaders of the other Quebec political parties, to end Quebec’s export of asbestos, to stop funding the Chrysotile Institute, to support the listing of chrysotile asbestos under the UN Rotterdam Convention, to assist the last 340 asbestos miners and their community with economic diversification and to address the asbestos disease epidemic in Quebec