Introduction by EB contributor Dr. Dan Bednarz
Donald Spady, MD, discusses the potential impacts of peak oil on the social determinants of health in Canada. These are the factors that are associated with keeping people healthy and are critical to maintaining personal health in a post-peak world. They also are integral to the infrastructure of both the health care system and the public health system.
There are at least three salient differences between Canada the United States. First, Canada is geographically large with a relatively small population of approximately 34 million. Approximately 21 million live in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, with 13 million spread across the vast geography of the eight other provinces and three territories. The entire province of New Brunswick, for example, is 28,000 square miles and has approximately 750,000 residents; in contrast, Massachusetts has 6.5 million residents on 7,800 square miles. The point is that health care systems must cover wide expanses.
Second, Canada has a national health plan; anyone who has seen Michael Moore’s “Sicko” will recall the scenes from the health clinic in Windsor, Ontario –across the river from Detroit- in which Moore asks Canadians how much their medical care will cost; they don’t know and find his question humorous. In 2006 Canada spent US $3,678 per capita on health care, while the U.S. spent $6,714, per-capita for health care.
Third, Canada is a relatively energy rich nation and an exporter to the US. These importance differences shape Canadians vulnerability to the health consequences of peak oil.
Excerpts from the Interview
Human life is impossible without energy. It can indeed be understood as a process of energy exchange between human beings and their environment. Oil today is the single most important energy resource for the lives and the way of life of Canadians.
However, oil is a finite resource, and there is an ongoing debate surrounding what has been termed “peak oil” . Current discussions are not so much focused on whether peak oil will happen, but rather, on when it will happen, and what will be the scope and range of its effects.
Some U.S. researchers have begun to examine how this phenomenon affects health outcomes and to consider possible responses by the public health sector. Many of these researchers attended a conference entitled “Peak Oil and Health” organized by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in March, 2009. Canadian public health circles have thus far been less engaged with these issues. To begin to clarify what is at stake specifically for Canadian public health with regards to peak oil, François Gagnon from the National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy (NCCHPP) interviewed Dr. Donald W. Spady, a paediatrician/epidemiologist in the Departments of Pediatrics and Public Health Sciences of the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Alberta in Edmonton, who is keenly interested in this issue and has been following these debates and engaging in conferences and webinars about them for the past few years.
François Gagnon (NCCHPP) – Why should public health professionals be concerned with peak oil?
Dr. Donald Spady (DS) – Since there are no clear and easy sources of energy to replace oil, and adequate amounts of affordable energy are essential to Canadian life, peak oil could affect the health of Canadians in significant ways. It will affect many parts of the infrastructure of Canadian society that largely determine the health of the Canadian population. For public health professionals, peak oil is significant because it will affect what are commonly called the social, environmental and economic determinants of health. For example, it will significantly affect, and require some reorganization of, our economic, transportation, and food systems. It is also important to public health professionals because it will very likely affect how health services are organized (the use of products and services dependent on petroleum permeates our health care system), but I understand the mandate of the NCCHPP does not cover this area and thus I will not expand on this now.
NCCHPP – Can you share your thoughts on the links between peak oil, the food system and health outcomes?
DS – Petroleum is used in virtually all aspects of food production and transportation, therefore peak oil presents a significant threat to Canadian food security. While this could pose a problem as petroleum supplies diminish, the immediate problem in Canada is not food production, it is food security; i.e. finding and buying adequate amounts of affordable and nutritious food. Peak oil will likely affect every component of food security: accessibility, availability, adequacy, acceptability, and agency. It will do so mainly and initially through economic factors, but ultimately also through the consequences of the lack of fuel and fertilizers which will be secondary to an absolute lack of petroleum. Food security is a common problem in an economic downturn where unemployment is high, but it is always and specifically the case in more remote areas of the country and on native reserves, where food is expensive and choice is limited. As well, some segments of the population, such as the elderly or single parent families, are always more exposed
to food insecurity because they may lack the ability to find and purchase adequate amounts of nutritious food.
The 2004 Canadian Community Health Survey found that 9.2% of Canadian households were food insecure at some point in the previous year and 8.8% of the population lived in food insecure households in 2004. It was the poorer person, often on social assistance, worker's compensation or unemployment insurance, who was at greatest risk. Another group, at risk for many problems besides food insecurity, was the Aboriginal household living off the reserve. Lone-parent families, larger families, and families with young children were at particular risk. Housing costs can play a role in determining food security status in low-income households and living in rental housing posed a particular risk. Quite possibly rent trumps food; these days a mortgage or a high energy bill may do the same.
In Canada in 2008, food prices rose 7.3% over the year, as compared to a rise in the Consumer Price Index of only 1.2%. Reasons for these rises include: high oil costs, climate change and associated crop losses and decreased yield, more land and food crops being used for biofuel production, and market speculation. It is reasonable to expect that these factors will persist over the next decades.
Depending on where you live, food prices in Canada can vary by as much as six-fold for the same product, and it has been reported that between 14% and 40% of Canadians face a problem of no or limited access to desirable nutritious foods, even when money is adequate. Food costs and value are particular problems in remote areas of Canada, especially Northern Canada, the high Arctic and on First Nations Reserves, where the types of food are less varied and the food is often of lower quality. For all Canadians, a lack of food access and variety may become a significant issue as long distance transport becomes increasingly expensive or even absent.
Two other issues that may affect the Canadian food supply are long-distance foods and corn-based biofuels. Much of our food travels thousands of kilometres to reach our table. These ‘long-distance’ foods may be more energy efficient and environmentally friendly than similar local foods, especially if foods are transported in large volumes, and thus long-distance foods should not be dismissed arbitrarily. Biofuels grown in North America are more problematic, with concerns about their energy benefits, their high fertilizer, fuel and water requirements, and their potential competition with food production contributing to concerns of food security. Other forms of biofuel, such as sugar cane and palm oil, are less 'food' based and have better energy characteristics; but, they also can have significant environmental impacts.
Full interview is here: