Maybe you heard on the news that since the beginning of 2026, PFAS (also called “Forever Chemicals”) have been banned from cosmetics and clothes in France. This is great news for the environment and consumer health. But if you are not in France, you may still buy cosmetics with PFAS in your local store.

So, how can you tell if your cosmetics contain PFAS? And should you actually worry about them?

Let’s dive in.

Welcome to OH!Science. Here you will learn how your health can be affected by various environmental factors. Written by scientists and verified by experts, here you get trustworthy information on potential risks without fear-mongering, with context, nuance, and practical tips for a healthier, more sustainable life.

Subscribe now

Share

What are PFAS, and why should you worry?

PFAS (Per- and polyfluoroalkyls) are a large group of man-made chemicals with more than 10’000 different compounds. They are very resistant and difficult to break down, accumulating everywhere, including our bodies. In environmental science, they are said to be “persistent”.

Depending on the specific PFAS and the level of exposure, studies have linked some of these chemicals to various health issues, such as:

• hormonal perturbations (e.g. thyroid disease, elevated cholesterol)

• liver damage

• some cancer types (breast, testicular, kidney)

• developmental effects on children because of exposure while they were in the mother’s womb

• reduced efficacy of vaccination

Scientists are still studying all these different PFAS, and we know much more about some compounds than others.

Figure 1. Fenton et al. 2020

Why are PFAS used in Cosmetics?

PFAS are used as ingredients in cosmetics because they are stable and resistant to heat, repel water and oil, and form durable and smooth layers on the skin. Do you know that waterproof mascara you love? Your long-lasting foundation that survives a hot summer day? PFAS have been widely used in products designed to stay on the skin longer, resist water and sweat, while maintaining a smooth texture that is easy to spread, exactly the features many consumers look for when choosing makeup.

Which PFAS are more likely in your cosmetics?

A 2022 Swedish study looked at large product databases and identified approximately 170 PFAS on the ingredient lists of European products.

Considering that there are more than 10’000 known PFAS, that number is relatively small. Could be worse! Still, no one can remember 170 ingredients with weird names (including myself). I can tell you that PTFE, better known as Teflon, is by far the most common one. (And yes, it's the same polymer used in non-stick frying pan coatings).

If you are super interested, you can find the full list in this Report. But an easy way to spot PFAS is to look for words that start with:

• Perfluoro-

• Polyfluoro-

• Fluoro-

• Trifluoro-

Which products are more likely to have PFAS?

The same 2022 Swedish study screened 112’639 products in the European market. The products that most commonly contained PFAS in their formulas were:

• foundations/BB creams

• shaving gel/foam

• pressed powder

• eyeliner

• Blush/Bronzer/contour

• concealer

• eyeshadow

By contrast, PFAS appear to be much less common in hair and skincare products, perfumes or fragrances, or toiletries.

However, consider that the percentage of products containing PFAS was already very low even before the French law came out. In this study, only 1.4% of the 112’639 products screened had PFAS in their formulation. Further, a 2024 French study looked at the ingredient list of 765 cosmetic products sold in the French market and found that only 3.5% of those contained PFAS.

There are already good alternatives to PFAS, and many companies are now replacing them with safer alternatives, which is good news.

How to choose a PFAS-free cosmetic product?

Now imagine you're standing in a shop trying to choose a PFAS-free product. What should you look for? Let’s go through the most common questions:

It is not labeled “waterproof”, does that mean it is PFAS-free?

No. Many products that contain PFAS are not waterproof. Also, many waterproof products are now made without PFAS.

If PFAS aren't listed in the ingredients, does that mean the product is PFAS-free?

Not 100%.

Some studies have detected PFAS in products whose ingredient lists did not mention them. For example, in a 2021 study, researchers tested 231 cosmetic products sold in the United States and Canada and found signs of PFAS in more than half of them, but only 8% had any PFAS listed as ingredients.

These are not intentionally added PFAS, and amounts are often very small. They might end up there due to contamination during production or packaging, which can be difficult to avoid. Note that the new French law only forbids intentionally added PFAS, meaning trace residual PFAS are still permitted as long as they stay below defined concentration limits.

You might want to avoid ordering products on online platforms and importing products outside the EU, because these might ignore our local legislation and still ship products that are otherwise not allowed in Europe.

Consider as well that certain companies might continue selling their products because they might not know that certain compounds are PFAS, or be unaware of the bans in single countries. These products might fall under the radar, as doing compliance checks on all of them is basically impossible.

My personal advice? Don’t stress about this! Let us focus on the things we can control.

What if the product says “PFAS-free”?

According to European law, a company cannot make false or misleading claims. If a company claims “PFAS-free,” it must be able to prove it if challenged by regulators or competitors. National market surveillance authorities can investigate and sanction misleading claims. “PFAS-free” might simply mean “No intentionally added PFAS”, but contamination is still possible. Resuming, these labels are no guarantee of absolute zero PFAS, but they are already a good sign.

So what’s the easiest way to check?

Now, a very practical tip: you can go to apps/databases like ewg (American), CosmEthics (Finish), Kemiluppen (Danish), or ToxFox (German). Scan the barcode or type in the name of your product and check the ingredient list. As mentioned before, look for ingredients that start with Perfluoro-, Polyfluoro-, Fluoro-, Trifluoro- or PTFE.

Note: These apps are widely used but also criticized by some toxicologists because their hazard-rating methods vary, and ingredient lists are sometimes added by users, meaning they can be outdated or contain mistakes. I recommend using them as a screening tool, rather than as definitive authorities on chemical safety.

Are PFAS in cosmetics actually dangerous?

Now, fears aside, let’s look at the real danger of these PFAS in our cosmetics.

Are we really getting exposed to PFAS from our cosmetics?

Yes, PFAS can enter our bodies by skin absorption or through the tear ducts, although this route is generally considered limited. Lip products may contribute more to exposure because small amounts are inevitably swallowed during normal use. How much PFAS enters the body through each route still needs more investigation.

But the dose makes the poison, right? How much is in these cosmetics?

You are right, PFAS concentration in cosmetics is generally quite low. One mascara will not cause you health issues. The problem is that you might use more than one cosmetic at once (everyday!). Depending on the type of PFAS, they may take a few months to several years to leave your body. That means they accumulate over time.

Additionally, they also accumulate in the environment, which means we continue getting exposed from other sources too (drinking water, food, dust, and other consumer products). When we wash cosmetics off our faces, these chemicals enter the water system and contaminate the rivers, the ocean, and our drinking water. So, avoiding PFAS in our cosmetics still makes sense because that is a source that we can control. This may be particularly relevant during pregnancy and breastfeeding, because some PFAS can cross the placenta or go into breast milk.

Good news

There are alternatives in the market, and Europe is working towards a general ban on PFAS.

In 2023, authorities from Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden submitted what is often called the “universal PFAS restriction proposal” under the EU’s REACH chemicals regulation. Rather than banning one or two PFAS, the proposal would restrict more than 10,000 PFAS substances across nearly all consumer and industrial uses, including cosmetics, textiles, food packaging, cleaning products, and industrial applications.

The proposal is still under evaluation, but it signals a major shift in how Europe approaches these persistent chemicals. For consumers, the trend is encouraging.

Until then, you can use the information in this article to guide your decisions. We cannot avoid it completely, but we can make informed choices when we can.

Buy me a coffee to support my work

Acknowledgements:
Thank you to Dr. Kristen Pütz, the main author of the Swedish study referenced here, for reviewing this article.

References:

“Per- and polyfluoroalkyls used as cosmetic ingredients - Qualitative study of 765 cosmetic products.” Couteau Céline, Brunet Catherine, Clarke Romane, Coiffard Laurence. Food and Chemical Toxicology, Volume 187, 2024, 114625, ISSN 0278-6915,

“Fluorinated Compounds in North American Cosmetics.” Heather D. Whitehead, Marta Venier, Yan Wu, Emi Eastman, Shannon Urbanik, Miriam L. Diamond, Anna Shalin, Heather Schwartz-Narbonne, Thomas A. Bruton, Arlene Blum, Zhanyun Wang, Megan Green, Meghanne Tighe, John T. Wilkinson, Sean McGuinness, and Graham F. Peaslee. Environmental Science & Technology Letters 2021 8 (7), 538-544. DOI: 10.1021/acs.estlett.1c00240

“Are cosmetics a significant source of PFAS in Europe? product inventories, chemical characterization and emission estimates.” Pütz KW, Namazkar S, Plassmann M, Benskin JP. . Environ Sci Process Impacts. 2022 Oct 19;24(10):1697-1707. doi: 10.1039/d2em00123c. PMID: 35959763.

“Estimation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) half-lives in human studies: A systematic review and meta-analysis.” I. Rosato, T. Bonato, T. Fletcher, E. Batzella, and C. Canova, Environmental Research, pp. 117743–117743, Nov. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2023.117743.

“PM 9/21: PFASs in Cosmetics”. Report from KEMI Swedish Chemicals Agency, 2021 https://www.kemi.se/en/publications/pms/2021/pm-9-21-pfass-in-cosmetics

“The transplacental transfer efficiency of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS): a first meta-analysis.” Appel M, Forsthuber M, Ramos R, Widhalm R, Granitzer S, Uhl M, Hengstschläger M, Stamm T, Gundacker C. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 2022 Jan 2;25(1):23-42. doi: 10.1080/10937404.2021.2009946. Epub 2021 Dec 20. PMID: 34930098.

“Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Breast Milk: Concerning Trends for Current-Use PFAS.” Zheng G, Schreder E, Dempsey JC, Uding N, Chu V, Andres G, Sathyanarayana S, Salamova A. Environ Sci Technol. 2021 Jun 1;55(11):7510-7520. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.0c06978. Epub 2021 May 13. PMID: 33982557.

Figure 1: Photo by Element5 Digital on Unsplash

Figure 2: “Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substance Toxicity and Human Health Review: Current State of Knowledge and Strategies for Informing Future Research” Suzanne E. Fenton, Alan Ducatman, Alan Boobis, Jamie C. DeWitt, Christopher Lau, Carla Ng, James S. Smith, Stephen M. Roberts,. Envoronm Toxicology and Chemistry, 2020 Oct 5; doi:10.1002/etc.4890

Chemicals as they are produced today

Everything in the world is made of chemicals. The plants, the soil, the water, the air, and even our bodies. Besides all the natural chemicals that are part of life itself, there are also the man-made chemicals, which are necessary to produce all our everyday products: medicine, clothes, computers, iPhones, cleaning products, toys, etc.

Did you know that the overwhelming majority of these chemicals are produced from crude oil and natural gas? Over the last century, the chemical industry has become remarkably efficient at creating new chemicals from this raw material. Oil and gas are broken down into simple molecules such as ethylene, propylene, benzene, and methanol. These are then transformed through a series of high-temperature, high-pressure chemical reactions into thousands of products used across modern society. It is a well-established process, simple, scalable, efficient, and low-cost.

The problem is... well, pollution and climate change. Most of these chemicals are made from carbon that has been locked underground for millions of years. Once we extract that oil or gas and turn it into products, that carbon eventually makes its way into the atmosphere as CO2 or other greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. Petrochemical plants can have major impacts on the health of local communities due to air, soil and water pollution. Also, since the transformation process requires high temperature and pressure, the industry itself is a major emitter of greenhouse gases (5% of total net GHG emissions in the EU, according to the European Environmental Agency).

So if we’re serious about reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, we can’t just electrify cars or build more wind turbines. We also need to rethink how we make the chemicals that modern life depends on.

The exciting part is that this is already beginning to happen. Researchers and startups around the world are developing new ways to make many of the same chemicals, but starting with renewable sources of carbon instead of oil. Some use plants, some use agricultural waste, and some even use engineered microbes. Let’s look at them and see what their potential is to fundamentally change how we produce chemicals.

Share

A new idea: Let Biology Do The Chemistry

Bacteria and yeast are little chemistry machines. They are able to transform chemicals into other chemicals through proteins called enzymes. You can imagine enzymes as little scissors and glue inside the cells that are cutting and pasting pieces of molecules to make different chemicals. So scientists had an idea: instead of using heat, pressure, and metal catalysts to transform petroleum into useful chemicals, why not take advantage of these microorganisms to produce the same?

Through advances in biotechnology, scientists can now redesign bacteria so that they are able to produce the industrial chemicals that we need.

Sounds like a fiction movie, I know, but it is probably not as you imagine. I am going to give you some basic concepts in microbiology while I explain the process.

Bear with me, I am gonna nerd you up!

Strains are bacterial populations with certain genetic characteristics. E. coli is the most commonly used bacterial species in biotechnology, and within e. coli there can be different strains (a population with certain genetic characteristics). To create a strain, scientists modify the bacteria’s DNA, or insert a gene of interest inside of it. Nature is constantly doing this in a random way, but now scientists have technology that allows them to make specific changes in the DNA in a very controlled way. So they know exactly what modification was made, where it was made, and the consequence of that change.

Let me give you an example. Imagine that you are a scientist and you want a bacterial strain that makes lactic acid (some ladies might know it, lactic acid gel can be used to control vaginal infections). E. coli bacteria can naturally produce lactic acid, but only small amounts. So you go to the lab and create a new strain, one that produces much more lactic acid. You make a bunch of tests to make sure the strain survives the changes, is safe, and makes lactic acid in the amounts you need. Then you put a few bacteria of your new strain into a flask or a huge tank (bioreactor), containing water and nutrients that these bacteria like. The bacteria multiply and multiply until the nutrients start falling short. This process is called fermentation. You probably have heard of it: it is the same process used to brew beer or make cheese. Now you need to take all the bacteria out and isolate the lactic acid in a process called “purification”. In the end, you get your gel with lactic acid (and of course no bacteria). You can also do this for a chemical that e. coli does not naturally produce by “giving it” the information it needs (the genes) and programming it to make it.

It is incredible how humans have learned to use nature’s tools, even the small ones that cannot be seen!

Different “fuels”, different bio-based technologies

Now that you understand the basics, let’s explore the different existing and emerging bio-based technologies to produce chemicals.

The key difference is not the microbes themselves, but what they eat. In nerdy terms, that is called the “feedstock”.

The oldest and most established approach uses sugars derived from crops such as corn or sugarcane. Engineered microorganisms consume glucose and convert it into different products. This technology is already commercial and has enabled numerous successful biomanufacturing companies. Its main drawback is that agricultural feedstocks require land, water, and fertilizer, and in some regions they compete with food production.

As an alternative, some companies process agricultural residues, forestry waste, or other forms of biomass. The biomass is broken down into smaller molecules that microorganisms can consume, allowing chemicals to be produced from material that might otherwise be discarded. This approach can reduce competition with food production, although it remains technically challenging to do it efficiently.

There are many other feedstocks: methane, formate, waste oils and fats, direct CO2, methanol and others. We will dive deeper into the later one through a case study.

Subscribe now

A Case Study: Teno Bioworks

One of the newest approaches replaces sugars with methanol. One real-world example of this is Teno Bioworks, an ETH startup that modifies e. coli to be able to use methanol as “fuel” and produce different industrial chemicals through fermentation. My friend and former PhD colleague Dr. Ronja Rappold is a co-founder, so I had the chance to speak with her about this. Ronja is a true change maker. She is already one of the founders of an NGO in Kenya (Barnabas Children Center) that helps match children with godparents who can financially support them to go through school. Ronja is one of my people; she also wants a healthier and more sustainable world, and that is why she co-founded Teno Bioworks.

She explained that the core innovation of her company is to modify e. coli to be able to use methanol as “fuel” (the same way we humans use sugar for our bodies to work). There are some bacteria in nature that use methanol as “fuel”, but too much methanol is toxic even for them. For this reason, these bacteria cannot efficiently transform methanol into chemicals we need, which would make it hard to upscale for industrial needs.
So this is what they did: They “copied” some of the genes that allow these bacteria to use methanol as fuel, and changed an industrial e. coli strain to do the same. It was not as simple as it seems, because methanol is also toxic for e. coli. So they had to make many alterations to the DNA until they found a strain that can use methanol as sole fuel and resists its toxicity. This is the unique technology from Teno Bioworks, which they patented.

Connecting this new technology with Carbon Capture

Why is this technology so great? Because methanol can also be a renewable source of energy, produced from CO2 captured from industrial facilities or directly from the air. This “Green Methanol” can be done with renewable energy (such as solar or wind). If the methanol can be produced on site, this could all be integrated into a fully circular system:

• Using renewable energy, CO2 and water are turned into methanol.

• Methanol is given to bacteria as food.

• Bacteria produce the chemicals we want.

• CO2 emitted by all these industrial processes feeds back into the system to produce more methanol and start the cycle again.

This is what a circular carbon economy looks like. How amazing is that?

They are still in the scale-up phase, and it will still take many years until they have the first product available in the market, but this approach illustrates the potential of using biology to produce chemicals in a more sustainable way.

“Compared to oil, sugar, or other feedstocks, green methanol is still too expensive, which means that our products are still not competitive in the market without a green premium.” said Ronja when I asked her about the main challenges. “Green methanol is around $1000/ton, while fossil-based methanol is cheaper, around $350/ton. Fossil-based processes have decades of optimization and do not price in planetary costs, which makes direct competition difficult. There are other companies and startups working on green methanol, so we are convinced that in some years we will be able to get it for a more competitive price.”

She also shared that to compete with the current industry, they need to be able to create huge amounts of product. But upscaling is going to be a long and costly multi-step process, and each product will need a separate engineering and downstream process optimization. If the price of renewable methanol goes down with time, that would certainly help.

Closing Remarks

Will biology replace petrochemistry completely? Probably not. At least not anytime soon. Different technologies will likely coexist, each making sense for different products and different parts of the world. But what is becoming clear is that we no longer have to rely exclusively on fossil carbon to make the chemicals our society depends on. Biology is giving us a new toolbox: one that works at room temperature, can use renewable “fuels”, and has the potential to fit into a circular carbon economy. There are still many scientific, engineering, and economic challenges ahead, but every new technology starts this way.

One of the things I love most about science is that it constantly reminds us that nature already has the solutions for many of the problems we are trying to fix. The microorganisms that humans have lived alongside for thousands of years may become some of our greatest allies in building a more sustainable chemical industry.

Subscribe now

Buy me a Coffee to Support my work

References

https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/european-zero-pollution-dashboards/indicators/total-greenhouse-gas-emissions-in-the-chemical-industry

Renewable methanol. Methanol Institute https://www.methanol.org/renewable/ (2023).

Reiter, M.A., Bradley, T., Büchel, L.A. et al. A synthetic methylotrophic Escherichia coli as a chassis for bioproduction from methanol. Nat Catal 7, 560–573 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41929-024-01137-0

Teno Bioworks - ETH startup https://entrepreneurship.ethz.ch/startups-spinoffs/find-offers-programs-space-grants-for-entrepreneurs/pioneer-fellowship/current-fellows/20241/teno-bioworks.html

Images are AI-generated (ChatGPT).

Disclaimer: This article has been reviewed by Dr. Ronja Rappold. TenoBioworks has not sponsored this work.

April 2026 - Andros Island, Greece

An empty beach. Sun on my face. An open book.

The book talked about the climate crisis, planetary boundaries, biodiversity loss, and the resulting social and financial crisis. Very triggering. Maybe not the best choice for my holiday.

I work with these topics. I know all these facts. It is not a comfortable truth to sit on every day.

Sometimes I want to put my head under the sand. Just to take a breath and forget about it.

It is hard to imagine a world where my kids will struggle more than me.

I lifted my head from the book. I had to catch some air. That familiar feeling was there. The compression on my chest. The overwhelm. The same feeling that made me quit my career and start a completely new one.

Yes, there she was... my dear anxiety.

Tears fell down my cheeks as I stared at the Mediterranean Sea.

I was on a breathtakingly beautiful island. The ocean had that colour I love. No one in sight. I was alone there with the love of my life. He felt it and sat behind me, kissing my neck. Said nothing. Let me feel it all.

I thought: How can the world contain so much beauty and so much pain at the same time? Somewhere out there, someone is starving, somewhere is scared of a bomb falling from the sky. And I am here. Blessed. Privileged. And the sea is calm. Birds fly over my head in their problem-free lives. I am safe. I am loved.

I am grateful.

I just finished a dive. I did not see many fish. “Only 20% of the fish in the ocean are wild” said the book. How amazing it must have been to dive here a decade ago…

Pisces are highly sensitive beings. I was always told that. Sitting there... I was feeling it all. Present, Past, Future. It was like my spirit could sense all that ever was, is, or will be. Like overlapping parallel realities.

It is all interconnected. And I was there feeling it all.

Finally, my husband spoke “Why are you crying?

And then I had to put it into words: “I am in grief.”

For Mother Earth.

For what we already stupidly destroyed.

For all the crazy shit that is happening in the world right now.

For all my kids will have to witness and lose during their lives.

What can I do? What is my role in it all?

I am just one person. I am nothing. Anything I do will be insignificant in the face of' the scale of things.

Those small decisions that I take every day just to reduce my impact: they don’t matter enough to make a difference, and yet they do. “Every day you live, you make an impact on the planet. You can’t live through a single day without making a difference. You decide what kind of difference you want to make”, said my idol, Jane Goodall. So I continue making those small decisions, hoping that it matters in a collective.

And then I go somewhere full of people, and I see them all walking around with disposable Starbucks cups, throwing cigarette buds on the floor, consuming and trashing, happy, careless, no guilt.

And here I am, guilty for the selfish decisions I took, which brought me here on an airplane, making me part of the problem. Knowing also that I would solve no problem even if I did it all perfectly. Knowing that perfection does not exist.

I wish I cared less. Maybe I should just enjoy life and care less.

Why are we here anyway? Are we not here to discover the path to happiness?

Maybe not...Maybe we are here to experience it all. The good, the bad, and the ugly, and still find happiness in the midst of it all. Despite it all.

What is my role in it all?

And then a thought came, like it was not mine. It felt like a whisper as I stared at the waves.

“Write”, said the ocean.

Write? That’s it? How can I create change with that? This is urgent! We need more action.

“Write”, said the ocean.

And I felt that tingling sensation on my face that I now recognize as my intuition speaking through my body.

It would be nice! - a smile on my face - Actually, when I was a kid, that was all I ever wanted to be, a writer. And then I started studying biology. The scientist rose, and the writer was gone.

“Write”, said the ocean.

I am not even sure what I have to say matters.

Do I even write well?

“Write”, said the ocean.

How can I write if I am always running around, kids, house, long to-do lists? How am I supposed to find creativity in the midst of all this? Real writers allow rest and boredom in their lives, and respect creativity when it comes. “Inspiration spurs,” they call it. Can I do less? Can I live slower?

“Write”, said the ocean.

Alright, I got it. I am overthinking.

Maybe my writing is just a container for all I feel and think.

Maybe writing helps me reach clarity for what I should do next.

Maybe it will matter for someone, maybe it won’t.

Sometimes the path isn’t clear, and that is ok.

The ocean told me to write, so I wrote this….

Buy Me a Coffee

Currently, mainstream media is this anxiety-building place, where all the headlines seem to point to a doomsday, human stupidity, poisonous things everywhere, and “they” are all out to get us.

Breathe.

These are real techniques to create clicks. Fear sells. Anger sells. Our attention span is shorter than 8 seconds. When we scroll, we use that passive part of the brain that does not rationalize what it sees. We internalize information and fears without realizing it.

There are many headlines around chemicals that are all around us, which are toxic and killing us slowly. And that is partly true, but it is not as black and white as it seems. Let’s break it down.

Chemicals everywhere

Firstly, let me clarify that the word “chemical” does not mean something bad. Everything is made up of chemicals. Water (H₂O) or Salt (NaCl) are easy examples. The air we breathe is made up of different gases, all chemicals. Even our bodies are made up of chemicals, like proteins or DNA. The food we eat, like sugar, fat, and carbs, these are all chemicals. Literally everything that has matter is made of chemicals. The only exceptions are “things” that aren’t matter at all, like light, radiation, sound, and vacuum.”

So next time someone tells you “That is full of chemicals,” you answer “I know”. And they continue, “these chemicals are slowly killing you,” and you answer “which chemicals are you talking about”?

Be specific. It is ok to drink a glass full of H₂O. That is just water. But H₂O₂? That is hydrogen peroxide. Not so good.

The lion in the room

Let´s nerd you up a bit.

Toxicologists are the scientists who study how toxic chemicals are. When a chemical has the potential to cause harm, they say it is HAZARDOUS.

We can use a lion to illustrate this. A lion in a room is a clear hazard; it has the potential to kill you.

But what if it’s inside a cage?

This helps you understand another important concept, which is EXPOSURE. If you are not exposed to the lion, it cannot harm you. You are safe, there is no risk. To study risks, toxicologists do something called CHEMICAL RISK ASSESSMENT. It takes into consideration how hazardous a chemical is (is it a lion or a mouse?) and the predicted exposure (is inside or outside the cage?).

Exposing the various angles of exposure

The lion example is a bit too simplified when we talk about chemicals. To define chemical exposure, we need to consider other things. How are you exposed to it? For how long? How many times? What is the amount of chemicals you got exposed to? All of this together is what defines the real risk.

Note that just because something is there and you are in contact with it, it doesn’t mean it can harm you. For example, timber (wood dust) is a cancerogenic particle (can cause cancer). But no one is going around saying that wood causes cancer, and you should not touch wood. There are safe uses for wood, and we can do woodwork safely as long as we wear a mask. If you don’t inhale timber, you are not truly exposed.

Toxicologists struggle with this because when the general public hears about a chemical being hazardous, they right away assume that there are no safe uses for it. And that is simply not true.

When they do a risk assessment, toxicologists need to consider the intended final use. A chemical might be safe to use on the skin but not for eating, so it can be added to a cream but not to food-contact materials. For example, Botox is derived from a very dangerous toxin from a bacterium. If ingested in large quantities, it could kill you, as it paralyzes the muscles. In small quantities injected into the skin, it is safe to use.

But I think the biggest panic in the media comes from the assumption that just because something is there and we are exposed to it, it will cause us harm. That is also far from the truth. Everything that we are exposed to causes an effect in our body. That can be good, bad, or neutral. Our body has mechanisms to handle toxicants, toxins, pollutants, bacteria, and viruses. Otherwise, we would need to live in a bubble. Some chemicals are modified in our body (metabolized), others are thrown away (excreted), and others are destroyed. Give some credit to the amazing machine that we are.

We don’t need to worry about whether chemicals might have effects on our body, but whether they cause ADVERSE EFFECTS. These are things like: inflammation, weakening of the immune system, cancer, diabetes, obesity, heart disease, etc. To prove that something is what we generally call “toxic”, toxicologists have to investigate how much our body can handle until we start having adverse effects. Already in the 1530s, Paracelsus said, “The dose makes the poison”. A small dose of table salt in our food is not harmful and even beneficial, but too much salt can harm us or even kill us. The same is true for all chemicals, and this is a basic principle in toxicology.

So when someone says, “Be careful, that is toxic!” you ask, “At which dose?” Quantities matter, and that is why regulations define safety thresholds for products.

The frequency also matters. Drinking a glass of wine will not kill you, but frequent heavy drinking can cause cirrhosis (liver damage) and death.

Managing exposure and anxiety

I hope this helped illustrate why you don’t need to panic every time you see a headline with a new toxic chemical in your everyday product. That does not mean we should not try to protect ourselves. We are exposed to many harmful chemicals every day, from various sources.

A big question that toxicologists are working on is the impact of chemical mixtures. Classical risk assessments look at individual chemicals, but in the real world, we are exposed to a combination of them. The impact of that we don’t know. Could these chemicals interact with each other in our bodies, creating a different effect than the individual chemicals? With new technologies and with AI, we hope to be able to better predict the safety of chemicals, including mixtures.

Note that uncertainty does not equal danger. It only means that we don’t know. To handle that uncertainty, some people take the precautionary approach and try to avoid all hazards, which can be quite stressful. Maybe the best is just trying to manage exposure in a balanced way.

To manage anxiety, question the headline and the tone of the message. One study does not equal enough evidence. There are many shitty studies out there. Look for scientific consensus and read in-depth analysis, rather than superficial and rushed conclusions.

Accept that in life there are risks, that’s part of it. There are parts in life that we can control and others that we don’t.

Reduce your exposure whenever you can, but don’t freak out about it. Anxiety is not a chemical per se, but it certainly raises certain chemicals in your body, which can cause severe adverse effects.

Subscribe now

Buy me a coffee to Support my work

Image by Canva

Subscribe now

Share

Lab-grown meat, what is that?

Lab-grown meat, also known as cultured meat, might sound quite artificial at first, but it is nothing more than taking a bit of muscle or some stem cells from an animal and growing these in a controlled environment inside a bioreactor. So, in the end, it is still just meat, but instead of growing in the animal’s body, this meat is “fed” through a culture medium made up of water, vitamins, amino acids, sugars, and growth factors. One clear advantage is that only a small biopsy is needed, which significantly reduces animal suffering, but lab-grown meat has also arrived as a promise of a more sustainable alternative. But how much more sustainable is it compared to conventional meat? The answer is complex.

Image by freepik

Behind your conventional steak

Before starting any comparisons, let’s understand why conventional meat production has a negative environmental impact. To put things into perspective, think about all the mammals in the world and consider that humans account for 34% of global mammal biomass, and an astonishing 62% is livestock, while wild mammals are only 4%. It is crazy to think that 94% of non-human mammals’ biomass in the world is the animals that we eat. Raising these animals for human consumption requires a lot of land. Half of the global livable land is used for agriculture. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, two-thirds of that agricultural land is used for livestock (permanent meadows and pastures). Additionally, more than 77% of global soy is fed to livestock for meat and dairy production, and only 7% directly for human consumption. Thus, growing animals for our own consumption requires vast areas of land, causing deforestation and, consequently, biodiversity loss.

Moreover, the conventional meat industry contributes to global warming, with beef being the worst. As a natural part of their digestive process, ruminants secrete methane through enteric fermentation, and each of these molecules has the same warming potential as 4 molecules of CO2. But the contribution of traditional meat production to global warming is not only about cows’ “farts” and fezzes. Forests are CO2-capturing systems, and their soils help retain warming gases such as CO2 and NO. Thus, clearing forests for growing feed for livestock or creating meadows and pasture is an indirect consequence of the meat and dairy industry that further contributes to climate change.

Of course, there are agricultural practices that allow for raising animals in a sustainable way, however the demand is too high, forcing the industrialization of this process. There are other things to consider, such as animal well-being, high need for water resources, pollution of ecosystems with nutrient-rich waters (eutrophication), and intense antibiotic use that weakens our immune systems.

Image by fabrikasimf on Freepik

Energy Requirements and Greenhouse Gases

Cultured meat requires electric energy to run the facilities and bioreactors, whereas animals get their energy through their food. While some electric energy is also needed to transport animals and run animal farms, it is safe to say that lab-grown meat requires much more electric energy. However, when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, the situation is more complex. Different life cycle analysis (LCA) studies have made different assumptions and considered various system boundaries, leading to diverse results, especially for beef.

If cultured meat facilities are powered by fossil fuels, the industry would continue to contribute to CO2 emissions and global warming. On the other hand, the methane and nitrous oxide produced from cows’ digestion have a higher warming potential than CO2, being equivalent to 25 and 298 CO2 molecules, respectively. Scientists from the University of Oxford pointed out in their 2019 study that CO2 molecules remain in the atmosphere longer than methane and nitrous oxide. Therefore, if the whole world suddenly stopped consuming meat, the CO2 from lab-grown meat would remain longer in the atmosphere than the methane and nitrous oxide from conventional beef production.

Thus, if lab-grown meat relies on fossil fuel energy, it could have a higher warming potential than conventional meat, depending on the scale of each industry. The Good Food Institute predicted that if cultured meat makes up 10% of the meat market by 2030, we would need at least 4,000 facilities to produce approximately 40 million metric tonnes of meat (ref). Most studies argue that by shifting to renewable energy sources, these issues could be circumvented, making cultivated meat more sustainable than beef.

Subscribe now

Saving space for rewilding the world

We live in a finite world with limited areas for growing food, yet predictions indicate that both the population and meat consumption will continue to rise. This means more land will be needed to grow feedstock for the animals we eat. It’s crucial that we start reducing the cultivation areas and rewilding some regions to recover biodiversity and allow nature to thrive so that it can provide for all of us.

The good news is that studies consistently show that cultured meat requires 90-99% less land than conventional meat. This significant reduction in land use could free up vast areas currently used for livestock and feed production. These areas could then be restored to natural habitats, supporting wildlife and helping combat climate change.

Image by Canva

What about water?

The water footprint of meat production varies significantly depending on factors such as location, climate, production methods, and feed efficiency. The water footprint of beef is notably higher compared to other livestock products. Studies have shown that the average world water footprint for beef cattle is around 15’000 L per kilo of meat and can go over 19’000 L/kg in the United States.

However, when we talk about water, we usually think of rivers, lakes, reservoirs, and groundwater, which is called blue water. Consuming blue water to produce meat would deplete these sources, leaving less for people’s consumption and natural ecosystems. On the other hand, green water is rainwater and is easily replenished unless there is a drought period. Beef production uses mostly greenwater (Sinke et al 2023). It is important to note that the water footprint numbers mentioned above include the water needed for the plants that cattle eat, which is mostly green water, and a small amount of blue water for irrigation. For example, in the Amazon region, the water footprint of beef is 13’074 L/kg, but the blue water footprint is only 425 L/Kg.

Most studies agree that cultured meat can lead to 82-96% lower water use compared to conventional meat, depending on the product. However, contrary to conventional meat, cultured meat uses mostly blue water, which changes the figures quite a bit. About half of the blue water use occurs at the production facility, mainly for culture media, while the other half is used in the supply chain, particularly for producing medium ingredients as well as infrastructure. Sinke and colleagues compared in 2023 the water footprint of cultured meat compared to conventional meat by the year 2030, using data from over 15 companies involved in lab-grown meat production and its supply chain. The study focuses on blue water and concludes that the water footprint of cultured meat is around 90L/Kg, which is slightly higher than chicken, pork, and beef from dairy cattle (between 50 and 80L/Kg), and much lower than beef from beef cattle (aprox. 250L/Kg). Thus, cultured meat wins regarding water, at least comparably to beef from beef cattle. The advantage of cultured meat could be even bigger if all the water were recycled at the facility (75% water recycling at the facility is already considered in this study), and if long periods of drought forced farmers to shift from green water to blue water to irrigate their fields, which is expected with climate change.

New Technology, many promises, and many uncertainties.

It is important to note that cultured meat is a new technology, and its future impact will depend largely on how production processes evolve and scale up, as well as opportunities to reduce emissions throughout the life cycle. Currently, production happens in small bioreactors, and there is no scalable solution yet, so all the life cycle assessments that we see today are based on assumptions and mathematical formulas, hypothetical processes, and simulation models. Companies are still refining various aspects of the technology, including culture media formulations, cell sources, methods to quickly multiply cells and differentiate them into muscle, and improving bioreactors. Despite these uncertainties, cultured meat already shows clear advantages in animal welfare, land usage, and water footprint, and also performs better on other environmental indicators, suchas acidification, fine particulate matter formation, and marine eutrophication. Additionally, cultured meat could offer a robust solution to future food crises and outbreaks caused by environmental disasters and climate change.

But are these industries considering the environmental impact of their processes as they develop this technology and their products? Are they considering running their facilities with renewable energy? I certainly hope so. Otherwise, it risks becoming just another industry with false solutions. Thus, I appeal to the lab-grown meat industry to make wise decisions moving forward.

As for us, consumers, let us not forget that when cultured meat reaches our markets, it does not come with a licence for unrestrained meat consumption. The best way to reduce our impact is to reduce our meat consumption in the first place. Locally grown and organic plant-based food is still the best choice for our health and our environment.

Share

REFERENCES

Hannah Ritchie (2017) - “How much of the world’s land would we need in order to feed the global population with the average diet of a given country?” Published online at OurWorldInData.org. Retrieved from: ‘https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets’ [Online Resource]

Butterbach-Bahl K, Baggs EM, Dannenmann M, Kiese R, Zechmeister-Boltenstern S. Nitrous oxide emissions from soils: how well do we understand the processes and their controls? Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2013 May 27;368(1621):20130122. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2013.0122. PMID: 23713120; PMCID: PMC3682742.

Raftowicz, M. Prospects for the Development of the Demand for Carp in Poland among Young Consumers. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 3831.

Sinke P, ​​Swartz E, Sanctorum H, van der Giesen C, Odegard I. Ex-ante life cycle assessment of commercial-scale cultivated meat production in 2030. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 2023;28: 234–254. doi:10.1007/s11367-022-02128-8

Tuomisto HL, J. Ellis M, Haastrup P. Environmental impacts of cultured meat production: Alternative Scenarios. Environ Sci Technol. 2014;45: 6117–6123. doi:10.1021/es200130u

Tuomisto HL, Teixeira De Mattos MJ. Environmental impacts of cultured meat production. Environ Sci Technol. 2011;45: 6117–6123. doi:10.1021/es200130u

Tuomisto HL, Allan SJ, Ellis MJ. Prospective life cycle assessment of a bioprocess design for cultured meat production in hollow fiber bioreactors. Sci Total Environ. 2022;851: 158051. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.158051

Mattick CS, Landis AE, Allenby BR, Genovese NJ. Anticipatory Life Cycle Analysis of In Vitro Biomass Cultivation for Cultured Meat Production in the United States. Environ Sci Technol. 2015;49: 11941–11949. doi:10.1021/acs.est.5b01614

Lynch J, Pierrehumbert R. Climate Impacts of Cultured Meat and Beef Cattle. Front Sustain Food Syst. 2019;3: 1–11. doi:10.3389/fsufs.2019.00005

Kim S, Beier A, Schreyer HB, Bakshi BR. Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of a Novel Cultivated Meat Burger Patty in the United States. Sustain. 2022;14: 1–16. doi:10.3390/su142316133

Treich N. Cultured Meat: Promises and Challenges. Environ Resour Econ. 2021;79: 33–61. doi:10.1007/s10640-021-00551-3

Scharf A, Breitmayer E, Carus M. Review and gap-analysis of LCA-studies of cultured meat. Good Food Inst. 2019.

“Cell-based disruption: How many factories, and at what capacity, are required to supply 10% of the meat market?”13 Aug 2021, By Flora Southey

D., Philipp., Ben, Putman., Greg, Thoma. (2019). ASAS-CSAS ANNUAL MEETING SYMPOSIUM ON WATER USE EFFICIENCY AT THE FORAGE-ANIMAL INTERFACE: Life cycle assessment of forage-based livestock production systems.. Journal of Animal Science, 97(4):1865-1873. doi: 10.1093/JAS/SKZ035

Urandi, João, Rodrigues, Junior., Maurício, Dziedzic. (2021). The water footprint of beef cattle in the amazon region, Brazil. Ciencia Rural, 51(8) doi: 10.1590/0103-8478CR20190294) Considering that climate change will create longer periods of drought, more blue water will be needed to irrigate the fields and feed these animals.

This is the story of Mama Anna, a true leader coming from the most unexpected of places. She is 67 years old but has more energy than I. Always smiling, dancing, singing, and opening her arms to the world, Mama Anna immediately conquered us all when we arrived at her village.

With everything happening in the world today, it is easy to feel that we are too small to change anything. But as Mama Anna told us this story, she reminded us all how that is simply not true. We all have agency and power to change things. Even small things can have a huge impact around us, acting like a small kick for a subsequent domino effect.

This is a story of resilience, strength, and courage. And it all started with a cow.

The Beginning

Mama Anna is part of the Meru people and was born in the mountains near Arusha, in Mulala village. She did not go to school because in her culture, women are supposed to marry and have kids.

One day (1992), an American man passed by the village. He belonged to Heifer International, an American nonprofit organization that fights to end hunger and poverty by providing livestock and training to help families become self-reliant.

He offered a cow to Mama Anna. This was a wonderful gift, but Mama Anna did not know how to milk the cow. The American man taught her, and from that day on, Mama Anna milked the cow every day.

To make some money, Mama Anna would go down to Arusha village on foot (a steep 10 km journey), carrying the milk on her head to sell in the market.

Developing Community

Inspired by the support that she received, Mama Anna decided to empower other women in her community by creating a chain-support system. Whenever her cow had a female calf, she gave it to another woman, who in turn would provide her female calves to another woman.

As it is traditional in the Meru culture, when someone gives something, one should give a gift in return. So, the women from her village who received cows from Mama Anna gave her their extra milk.

With the excess of milk, she could increase her business. But how to carry this much milk to the city? By car was unfortunately not an option, because the road to Arusha is very bumpy - “natural massage” they say - so by the time the milk arrived, it was spoiled.

“No problem - I’ll make cheese”, she said. An entrepreneur at the core, no doubt, because no one in her village knew how to make cheese. That did not stop her, though.

Growing Business

Mama Anna heard of an organisation called FAIDA and wrote them a letter to ask for help. They were collecting donations to help people who wanted to start a business or teach them a new craft. When given the choice, it was clear to Mama Anna: “I want to learn to make cheese”. So in 1996, she went to school for a year to learn everything about cheese, returned to her village, and started to teach other women how to make it as well.

She founded the Agape Women’s group, composed of village ladies who took care of the cows, made cheese, and sold it. The cheese became known, and people started coming to buy it.

A woman-led business was growing in a culture where women were not supposed to do business. Mama Anna did not care, and had even another idea: create a tourist attraction in the village. People started coming to learn about the ways of the Meru people and see how they made cheese, prepared local coffee, and used medical herbs as medicine. Guests could even stay for the night and enjoy the slow living of the village for a few days.

One day, a very special guest arrived.

Subscribe now

The visit that changed everything

In 2009, a German woman called Ruth came to visit Mulala village. Ruth and Mama Anna created a very beautiful relationship, and Mama Anna shared with Ruth her biggest dream: She wished to build a school in the village with the profit that the women’s group made from the cheese and tourism.

Ruth said, “That is such a wonderful idea! But you are not going to do it alone”. And so started a new project and a beautiful partnership. Ruth went back to Germany to fundraise and every year would return to bring money and support Mama Anna.

But this project would encounter many more obstacles than one could imagine, and Mama Anna had to be stronger than ever before.

Building a Dream, the hard way

In 2012, Mama Anna was able to convince the government to give a piece of land for building the school, but the construction project was being led by a group of men. The project was developing slowly, as it could only proceed when there was money, and had to be paused several times. The men leading the construction were not very patient and, at some point, abandoned the project.

But Mama Anna did not let her dream go so easily. She fought to transfer the land and the project to the Agape Women’s group, so they could lead and complete it. It was not an easy fight.

The local community pushed back because this was simply not something that a group of women could do. Many did not see the benefit or understand Mama Anna’s vision.

Mama Anna had to be smart about it, so she asked for assistance from the Tourism and Culture ministry, which is made up of men. Due to their endorsement, they were able to register the land and the school in the Agape Women’s group name.

The women felt empowered, but the community was still not convinced. Imagine all the hard work to raise the money and carry the materials up the mountain, and wake up one day to see that the materials were stolen. But Mama Anna always said, “Tears are a waste of water, so I fill myself with laughter”. And so she persisted, head up and laughing, always praying to God.

Finally, the Mulala secondary school was successfully ready in 2020 (8 years later), and in 2021, lectures started.

And now…

Mama Anna’s business continues strong. Now there are 6 ladies in the Agape Women’s Group, caring for the cows, producing cheese, and receiving tourists. 170 farmers bring milk to the village for cheese production. Many people, including tourists and hotels, come to buy it.

Slowly, the village people came to accept Mama Ana’s business and projects, and she became loved and admired in the region. The benefits are clear: there are now 360 students in the local school, 21 teachers and resources paid by the state, and many volunteers who come to teach and stay at Mama Anna’s house. The only things the families have to provide are the uniforms and the books.

Through her example, Mama Anna empowered other women in the community, and girls are now going to school. One of her daughters completed 7 years in school, and another went to University.

At 67, Mama Anna continues dreaming. Her new ambition is to open an orphanage to care for destitute and orphan children. She already cares for two children who live with her.

As we sat drinking coffee and listening to all these stories, we asked Mama Anna what her take-home message for us was. She said, “As a woman, you don’t have to wait for your husband to make things happen. You can empower your family and your community. Be bold!”

Final Reflections

This story carries many lessons. It reminds us that our dreams are possible if we are persistent and courageous. Small actions can initiate a cascade of events that create a big impact. There is no excuse; whatever we dream of is possible, and we can start today with small steps.

This is also an example of the power of community. According to the Meru people’s culture, when one receives something, one should give back. Mama Anna’s business grew, but instead of becoming rich, she decided to help her community grow. Imagine if everyone in the world did that. What a better world we would be living in!

Mama Anna’s next dream

Mama Anna is now building an orphanage! This woman is incredible, she does not stop! She already has children under her care and a building that will be their home. She needs money to renovate and furnish. It is not even that much: Only 5000 EUR!
If you could help, you can Donate Here!

Please share Mama Anna’s story and fundraising campaign, so that we can help her with her mission.

As the planet warms and the climate changes, we often think of heatwaves, rising sea levels, and extreme weather. However, another less visible danger is crawling silently amidst high grass: ticks!

These tiny arachnids are not only increasing in number but are also expanding their range in both latitude and altitude, thereby bringing a greater risk of tick-borne diseases. This is a small reminder that the climate crisis is also a health crisis.

Subscribe now

The dangers of tick-borne diseases

Ticks can transmit a wide range of diseases, including bacterial, viral, and parasitic infections. Some pathogens are transmitted directly after a bite, while others are only transmitted after several hours of blood sucking. Although certain diseases can have serious consequences, it is important to note that not all ticks carry diseases. Different tick species carry specific pathogens, and since these species occur in certain regions, the pathogens they carry are also region-dependent (Fig. 1).

The most common European tick is the castor bean tick (Ixodes ricinus), which is the main carrier of pathogens of public health relevance in Europe.

Figure 1: Presence of Ixodes ricinus tick. Image from the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control and the European Food Safety Authority. Tick maps [internet]. Stockholm: ECDC; 2023.

Here is a summary of the most relevant tick-related diseases:

Lyme disease/Borreliosis

Lyme disease is caused by a bacterium called Borrelia burgdorferi, and is the most common tick-borne illness in Europe and the U.S. When ticks transmit this disease, a typical ring-like rash appears around the bite site (Fig. 2), but not always.

Other early signs include fever, headache, extreme tiredness, muscle pain, stiff joints, and swollen lymph nodes. If you notice this rash and any of the other symptoms, you should seek a doctor. The diagnosis is done through a blood test, searching for specific antibodies against Borrelia, and the treatment typically involves antibiotics. Without treatment, the disease can evolve in 3 stages, with the last stage including more severe consequences such as arthritis, neurological problems, heart problems, and constant fatigue. With proper treatment, most patients recover fully, but a few experience long-term complications (post-treatment Lyme disease syndrome). There is unfortunately no vaccine for Lyme disease, but there is hope. A promising new vaccine candidate from Valneva and Pfizer is currently in phase 3 clinical trials.

Figure 2: Images of Lyme disease rash on different skin colors. Pictures are from MAYO Clinic.

Tick-borne Encephalitis (TBE)

Encephalitis is the medical term for brain inflammation, which is characterized by brain swelling and damage, and can sometimes be very serious. Encephalitis can have many causes, and tick-borne TBE is a specific type of encephalitis that is caused by a virus carried by ticks. This one does not cause any specific rash, like Lyme disease, so it can go unnoticed. Symptoms are broad and all related to brain damage: headaches, confusion, partial paralysis, memory loss, hallucinations, psychosis, and, in severe cases, coma or death. To treat encephalitis, early detection is crucial. In the case of tick-borne TBE, the treatment includes antiviral medication and other medications to control symptoms. Despite medical advances, mortality remains around 10%. Fortunately, there is a safe and effective vaccine, which is included in the vaccine plan in most countries with high risk (Fig. 3).

Figure 3: Map of reported tick-borne encephalitis (TBE), highlighting the European countries with higher risk. Image from the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control and the European Food Safety Authority. Tick maps [internet]. Stockholm: ECDC; 2023.

Other Diseases carried by ticks:

Other diseases which are less common but still relevant include:

• Babesiosis (parasitic infection, affects mainly dogs and cattle)

• Ehrlichiosis (bacterial, potentially life-threatening)

• Rickettsiosis (bacterial, commonly known as “tick fever” or “spotted fever”)

• Turalemia (bacterial)

• Human Granulocytic Anaplasmosis (bacterial, flu-like symptoms)

Why climate change matters?

The life cycle of certain ticks is strongly influenced by temperature; thus, the warmer weather caused by altered weather patterns is helping ticks survive and reproduce in places where they previously couldn’t. In Europe, these changes are already evident, with ticks moving further north and higher up in the mountains, and appearing in countries that historically had lower risk. The result: growing populations, wider spread, and more bites.

Tick-borne diseases are on the rise

With increased tick populations spread over a larger geographical range, the diseases carried by them are also on the rise.

In 2022 alone, over 3’600 cases of TBE were reported across Europe, with Austria, Switzerland, Germany, and the Czech Republic among countries with a higher risk of exposure. According to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, human infections have increased by 400x in the last 3 decades.

Lyme disease, however, remains the most common tick-borne illness. Countries such as Finland, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Switzerland report the highest prevalence in Europe. A systematic review shows that incidence has been steadily rising between 2005 and 2020, surpassing 100 cases per 100’000 inhabitants annually in these countries.

Studies predict that this trend will continue as the Earth continues to warm, landscapes change, and tick hosts migrate to other locations.

Protecting yourself

Ticks shouldn’t keep us from enjoying nature, but awareness and prevention are key. Learn to identify them and how to remove them.

Figure 4: The development stages of Ixodes ricinus. The picture is from R. Ackermann.

Ticks like to live in places that are shady and humid. You’ll often find them in forests, especially in areas with lots of leafy trees, but also in grassy areas at the edge of woods or pastures with high grass. They can also be in city parks and gardens, particularly in grass and bushes close to trees. They’re also common near riverbanks or in damp, marshy areas.

These spots are perfect for ticks because the moisture helps them survive, especially when they’re young and more vulnerable to drying out (Fig. 5). Plus, these environments are home to animals like deer, rodents, and hares, which ticks depend on for food.

Figure 5: Forest path - an example of a typical tick habitat. By co-author Finja Hansen.

If you plan to go to such places, consider:

• Wearing long clothing and closed shoes makes it difficult for ticks to access your skin, and light-colored fabrics make it easier to spot them. Additionally, pull your socks over your trousers.

• Use tick repellents on skin and spray clothes with 0.5% permethrin. Their effect wears off after a few hours, and although they generally keep ticks away, they cannot prevent bites.

• Checking your body thoroughly after spending time outdoors, especially in hidden areas like the armpits or hairline.

• Remove ticks quickly and carefully with fine-tipped tweezers to minimize infection risk. Check this link on how to remove a tick and for further tips.

• Vaccination is an additional line of defense in high-risk countries. Luckily, the TBE vaccine is well established, and Lyme vaccines may follow soon.

Final thoughts

The expansion of ticks is another reminder of how deeply interconnected climate and health are. As habitats change, diseases once confined to certain regions now appear in new places, putting more people at risk.

Despite these risks, spending time in nature remains vital for our well-being. Nothing in life is fully risk-free, but with awareness, prevention, and innovation, we can stay one step ahead. So be aware, protect yourself, and enjoy.

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

References

Bajer, Anna et al. “Babesiosis in Southeastern, Central and Northeastern Europe: An Emerging and Re-Emerging Tick-Borne Disease of Humans and Animals.” Microorganisms vol. 10,5 (2022): 945. doi:10.3390/microorganisms10050945

Benzoni, Thomas et al. “Tick removal”: StatPearls Publishing LLC (2023): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK441855/ Accessed 12. September 2025.

Burn, Leah et al. “Incidence of Lyme Borreliosis in Europe: A Systematic Review (2005-2020).” Vector borne and zoonotic diseases (Larchmont, N.Y.) vol. 23,4 (2023): 172-194. doi:10.1089/vbz.2022.0070

Cao, Bo et al. “Ticks jump in a warmer world: Global distribution shifts of main pathogenic ticks are associated with future climate change.” Journal of environmental management vol. 374 (2025): 124129. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.124129

ECDC, “Tick-borne encephalitis - Annual Epidemiological Report for 2022.” ECDC, (2024).https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/tick-borne-encephalistis-annual-epidemiological-report-2022_0.pdf Accessed 12. September 2025.

Eisen, Lars. “Pathogen transmission in relation to duration of attachment by Ixodes scapularis ticks.” Ticks and tick-borne diseases vol. 9,3 (2018): 535-542. doi:10.1016/j.ttbdis.2018.01.002

Gong, Lingling, et al. “A comprehensive review of tick-borne disease epidemiology, clinical manifestations, pathogenesis, and prevention.” Animals and Zoonoses vol. 1,3 (2025): 254-265. doi.org/10.1016/j.azn.2025.05.004

LymeDisease.org. “Prevention steps against tick-borne illness.” LymeDisease: https://www.lymedisease.org/lyme-basics/ticks/personal-protection/. Accessed 12. September 2025.

Mayo Clinic Staff. “Lyme disease - Symptoms and causes.” Mayo Clinic (2023): https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/lyme-disease/symptoms-causes/syc-20374651. Accessed 12. September 2025.

​​Drumm, Joshua. “Phase 3 VALOR Lyme Disease Trial: Valneva and Pfizer Announce Primary Vaccination Series Completion.” Valneva (2024): https://valneva.com/press-release/phase-3-valor-lyme-disease-trial-valneva-and-pfizer-announce-primary-vaccination-series-completion/. Accessed 12. September 2025.

Springer, Andrea et al. “Tick hazard in a Central European country: Mapping Europe’s principal tick-borne disease vector across Germany.” Ticks and tick-borne diseases vol. 16,3 (2025): 102485. doi:10.1016/j.ttbdis.2025.102485

Tsoumani, Maria E. et al. “Climate Change impacts on the Prevalence of Tick-Borne Diseases in Europe.” Environ. Sci. Proc. vol. 26,1 (2023): 18. doi.org/10.3390/environsciproc2023026018

Voyiatzaki, Chrysa et al. “Climate Changes Exacerbate the Spread of Ixodes ricinus and the Occurrence of Lyme Borreliosis and Tick-Borne Encephalitis in Europe-How Climate Models Are Used as a Risk Assessment Approach for Tick-Borne Diseases.” International journal of environmental research and public health vol. 19,11 (2022): 6516. doi:10.3390/ijerph19116516

Zając, Zbigniew et al. “Environmental determinants of the occurrence and activity of Ixodes ricinus ticks and the prevalence of tick-borne diseases in eastern Poland.” Scientific reports vol. 11,1 (2021): 15472. doi:10.1038/s41598-021-95079-3

Subscribe now

Here you’ll find long-form articles, videos, and resources that explain the science behind how our environment impacts human health, explore the latest policy developments, and share practical tips for healthier and more sustainable everyday choices.

It’s naive to think that our health exists in a vacuum. Our health is deeply interconnected with the health of animals and the environment. This concept is called “One Health” (that’s what the OH! stands for in OH!Science).

I created OH!Science, because I understood that we cannot be healthy on a sick planet, but today’s society is too disconnected from Nature.

We are killing ourselves!

With this project, I hope to bridge the gap between science, industry, policy, and society, translating complex research into insights and stories that inspire awareness and action.

But there is a second reason why I started to work on science communication. I also realized that we are already living in a Post-Truth Era, where facts don’t matter anymore. Debates are shaped by emotional discourses, while facts are cherry-picked to fit narratives. And while half-truths and falsehoods are spread using emotions as amplifiers, the actual truth becomes irrelevant.

This is extremely dangerous!

Science has brought us everything we know, from airplanes to medicine, energy, and technology. Yet people are losing trust in it. When we dismiss facts, we cannot agree on the problems that we face as a human race. If we don’t agree on the problems, we cannot solve them, and the current problems are too big and complex for us to keep wasting time discussing the facts.

Science should not be attached to any narrative. When we start with the narrative and go look for the facts that confirm it, we suffer something called “Confirmation Bias”. And that is what ultimately leads to fact cherry picking and denial of facts that don’t fit the narrative. We see this happening way too often, unfortunately. And this is what is breaking people’s trust in scientists. We need to do better!

That is what I will try to do as a science communicator. I will keep challenging myself: what if I haven’t seen all the data? What if I am biased in my interpretation? I will recognize the importance of nuance and context.

I might fail sometimes, because I am also human and I also have biases. But I will try, because these are my values and this is what I defend.

Let me set the record straight from the beginning: I am not a chemist or material scientist. I have been a cell biologist and a biomedical scientist for 10 years. I am also not a certified toxicologist, although I learned many basic toxicology principles as I studied the impacts of certain drugs on cells in the laboratory. Now I work at the intersection between the environment and health, and a lot of it is new to me still. I think that the fact that I am not an “expert” yet is an advantage in this case. I am not attached to the knowledge that was passed on to me by curricula and teachers. I still carry a lot of curiosity, and that motivates me to ask the right questions and to receive answers with critical thinking.

As I keep deepening my knowledge in this new field of study, I will tag you along on that journey, sharing what I know so far and my 2 cents of interpretation. I will not hold absolute truths. Science is a methodology, and knowledge is always evolving.

Here, I will also hold space for your curious questions, and I am happy to be challenged with facts that force me to reflect on my interpretations. I will not welcome insults or rudeness in my space. Everything that cannot be proven is a belief, and here beliefs are to be respected. Let this be a place for learning and respectful debates.

Subscribe now

Thanks for reading OH!Science by Dr. Andreia Fernandes! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.