Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Earth

About 15% of World's Cropland Polluted With Toxic Metals, Say Researchers 21

About one sixth of global cropland is contaminated by toxic heavy metals, researchers have estimated, with as many as 1.4 billion people living in high-risk areas worldwide. From a report: Approximately 14 to 17% of cropland globally -- roughly 242m hectares -- is contaminated by at least one toxic metal such as arsenic, cadmium, cobalt, chromium, copper, nickel or lead, at levels that exceed agricultural and human health safety thresholds.

The analysis, which was conducted by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and published in the journal Science, collected data from more than 1,000 regional studies across the globe, as well as using machine learning technology. Dr Liz Rylott, a senior lecturer in the department of biology at the University of York, who was not involved in the research, said: "These findings reveal the deeply worrying extent to which these natural poisons are polluting our soils, entering our food and water, and affecting our health and our environment. Often collectively called heavy metals, these elements cause a range of devastating health problems, including skin lesions, reduced nerve and organ functions, and cancers."

Toxic metal pollution in soil originates from both natural and human activity. Contaminated soil causes significant risks to ecosystems and human health as well as reducing crop yields, jeopardising water quality and food safety owing to bioaccumulation in farm animals. Toxic metal contamination can persist for decades once pollution has been introduced into soil.

About 15% of World's Cropland Polluted With Toxic Metals, Say Researchers

Comments Filter:
  • Look on the bright side, 85 percent is not.
    • The problem is a rotten apple spoils the bunch. Some toxins are bad at any level. And lots of food that people consume is a mixture of ingredients due to being processed. Even if say eating raw spinach; eating a well balanced meal is important to health so there is a good chance you will come across one of these foods. Essentially that would be saying just keep 85 percent of the crops (which is even less after pests, droughts or even too much rain at the wrong time of the crop et cetera to wrap up failed cr
  • by FictionPimp ( 712802 ) on Saturday April 19, 2025 @07:29AM (#65316729) Homepage

    Iâ(TM)m a sporting clay shooter. Half the courses I shoot at have us shooting into farmland like corn or wheat. They require lead shot. Always thought that was weird.

  • That is, wait, 24'200 square meters...

    Somebod that does not sound accurate. Looks like somebody does not understand SI. Pathetic.

    • That is, wait, 24'200 square meters...

      Somebod that does not sound accurate. Looks like somebody does not understand SI. Pathetic.

      "242m hectares". 1000000 "in British English as m" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] Cheers to making the most out of the long weekend and asking others to explain your made up quote.

  • by Retired Chemist ( 5039029 ) on Saturday April 19, 2025 @08:34AM (#65316799)
    This has been known for a long time. Most of this contamination is naturally occurring. Most crop plants should also not absorb them from the soil in significant amounts, since they are also toxic to the plants. Yes, this can be a problem in certain areas where the contamination is high. Bangladesh comes to mind, where the ground water is heavily contaminated with arsenic. The worst contaminated areas should not be farmed, but they are generally in the subsistence farming parts of the world, so the locals have little choice, but to farm or starve.
    • by RockDoctor ( 15477 ) on Saturday April 19, 2025 @09:39AM (#65316883) Journal
      As a geologist, I've got to query, if the materials are naturally occurring, in what sense is it "contamination"? There never was, nor could there possibly have been an "uncontaminated" soil made from those bedrocks and drift materials.

      Another important point is that if you're talking about land within a mile or several of a highway, in the last near-century, then it will have received aerial deposition of lead from traffic fumes. Which I agree is "contamination", but given the ubiquity (until 15~ years ago) of lead-dosed fuels I wonder about either their threshold levels (so "accepting" significant areas of traffic-contamination with lead) or where they're sampling their data from. In Europe or America - or a lot of Africa, or Asia, you'd find measurable lead contamination almost everywhere. Or are they counting extremely-low stock density grazing lands, which barely qualify as "agricultural".

      Quibbles aside, I'm surprised it's so low.

      If an area's bedrock runs to 10ppm Cr, and it's natural soil runs to 12ppm Cr, (implying 20% m/m loss of rock mass on weathering into soil) is that contamination?

  • contaminated by at least one toxic metal such as arsenic, cadmium, cobalt, chromium, copper, nickel, lead,
    Jet, Diamond, Radium, Sapphire, Silver and Steel.

    Sapphire and Steel have been assigned.

  • Tobacco is superb at absorbing metals from soil. The US has even developed a variant specifically for super-fund sites.

  • by kencurry ( 471519 ) on Saturday April 19, 2025 @11:13AM (#65317079)
    A Guardian story, doesn't report the analysis levels, methods, exposure limits for the metals, anything other than what's in the title. Slashdot admins you can do better.
  • Input is an interesting metric, but the only thing that truly matters is output. If you have toxic levels of lead in the soil, how much is getting in the crops? Some crops absorb a ton of toxins in the soil, some don't. Lettuce?...yeah, don't plant that in toxic soil. Fruit trees?...most studies have shown they don't absorb most soil toxins, so a field that is a no-go for broccoli or lettuce may be perfectly fine for apples. Also, a toxic concentration that would taint a strawberry may be perfectly fine

You can write a small letter to Grandma in the filename. -- Forbes Burkowski, CS, University of Washington

Working...