| In what might be the most South African scientific study ever, researchers are investigating whether Rooibos tea (the nation’s go-to comfort drink) can help petrol attendants fend off the nasty effects of petrol fumes.
South Africa doesn’t have self-service pumps like in many other countries. Instead, petrol attendants spend hours daily marinating in volatile organic compounds (VOCs) - a delightful mix of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (or BTEX, if you like your toxins with a snappy acronym). These chemicals are linked to respiratory problems, DNA damage and enough long-term health issues to make anyone queasy. And while there are workplace safety regulations in place for petrol attendants, enforcement is… let’s just say, a bit patchy.
Fortunately, scientists at the National Institute for Occupational Health (NIOH) are on the case, hoping that a few cups of our beloved red brew could offer some real protection against the toxic cocktail of chemicals these workers inhale. Their study will see half the participants sipping three cups of Rooibos daily for six months, while the unlucky control group gets nothing but a stack of health guidelines and a pat on the back - and perhaps those seemingly eternal energy drink specials at the little shop to tide them over.
While early signs are promising, the research team is keeping expectations in check. More research is needed before we can officially declare Rooibos the caped crusader of the fuel industry. But if the findings hold up, we might just see petrol stations swapping out their "No Smoking" signs for "Have You Had Your Rooibos Today?" posters. Stay tuned - results drop later this year.
Rooibos is at least a sensible thing for people to enjoy. Chillis, on the other hand, make no sense at all. In fact, nature designed them to avoid being eaten by mammals. Nevertheless, here we are as a species, with YouTube channels dedicated to absurdly hot food challenges and food companies falling over each other to launch the next hot flavour. Why are we like this? Dominique Olivier explores this topic in her latest column>>>
Read on for a tale of panda diplomacy. Before you laugh, just consider whether it can really be any worse than the current crop of world leaders. Perhaps the bamboo eaters are the answer? To help you ponder such questions, Dominique's Fast Facts section is themed around items in the philosopher's toolbox, making sure you can reference Hanlon's Razor around the water cooler next week.
Have a lovely Sunday!
The Finance Ghost (follow on X) | Dominique Olivier (connect on LinkedIn) |
|---|
|
|---|
| Hot take: chillies and the human desire for suffering |
|---|
|
|---|
| | | Curry. Con carne. Arrabbiata. Peri-peri. In almost every corner of this world, you’ll find a dish that’s been given the signature bite of the chilli pepper. As strong as they are small, these pungent peppers have achieved the culinary equivalent of world domination, when all they really wanted to do was to get us to stop eating them. Dominique Olivier gives us her hot take>>> |
|---|
|
|---|
| Panda-as-a-Service TL;DR: If you think international relations are all about trade agreements and handshake photo-ops, think again. Sometimes, it’s about who controls the world’s supply of bamboo-munching fluff balls.
Welcome to the weird and wonderful world of panda diplomacy, where China has spent decades making global leaders grovel for the privilege of borrowing a black-and-white bear.
Panda diplomacy isn’t some modern PR stunt. In fact, it’s been a thing for over 1,300 years. Back in 685 AD, Empress Wu Zetian of the Tang Dynasty gifted a pair of pandas to the Japanese emperor, presumably to secure good relations (or just to flex that she had pandas and he didn’t). Japan, having no pandas of its own, was understandably thrilled; this was the diplomatic equivalent of getting a PS5 before anyone else. In 1957, China gifted pandas to the Soviet Union to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the October Revolution, initiating modern panda diplomacy.
China’s big panda power move happened in 1972, right in the middle of the Cold War. After US President Richard Nixon pulled off his historic visit to China (where he did his best to look comfortable using chopsticks), Chairman Mao Zedong sent two pandas named Ling-Ling and Hsing-Hsing to the Smithsonian National Zoo in Washington, DC as a “gift of friendship”. Americans, naturally, lost their minds.
Not to be outdone, Britain wanted in on the panda game. So, Prime Minister Edward Heath made a trip to China in 1974 and bam - two pandas secured for the London Zoo. This marked the start of a simple but effective formula: want better relations with China? Ask for pandas.
By the 1980s, China realised it could monetise the global thirst for pandas, so instead of giving them away for free, they started renting them out. Now, any country that wants a panda has to sign a panda lease agreement. The cost is roughly $1 million per year, per panda - and if the pandas have babies, those belong to China too. No exceptions. Even if a panda is born in your zoo, it has to be shipped back home eventually, like a college kid returning from a study year abroad.
Of course, what nobody talks about is the fact that keeping these rented pandas happy and healthy costs zoos an absolute fortune (over and above their borderline-extortionate rental fee). Pandas only eat bamboo, and they each plough through up to 40kg of the green stuff per day. Obviously, that’s not something you can just grab from the local supermarket. As a result, many zoos have to either import fresh bamboo from special farms or even grow their own, turning panda feeding into an ongoing logistical nightmare.
Then there’s the infrastructure. Pandas need climate-controlled enclosures, expert veterinary care, and enrichment programs to keep them from getting bored (yes, even pandas need entertainment). All in all, some estimates suggest that keeping a single panda can cost a zoo upwards of $50,000 (R921,000+) per month. It really makes you wonder if these pandas are really a gift, or simply China managing to offload the cost and care of some very expensive bears to zoos in other countries.
Despite these costs, panda diplomacy is still in full swing today. Countries that get along with China often score a panda loan. Countries that don’t get no pandas. Historically, China has even recalled pandas as a diplomatic snub when tensions rise, because nothing says “we’re not friends” like taking your bear back.
In case you were wondering, South Africa doesn’t currently have any pandas. Apparently this has nothing to do with our good relationship with China. We just can’t afford them.
But if things keep going wrong for our country with the US, perhaps China will reward our efforts to irritate the Americans by giving us a solid discount on a couple of cuddly new friends. |
|---|
|
|---|
| Dominique's fast facts: Items in the philosopher's toolbox |
|---|
|
|---|
| An assortment of facts that will only take you five minutes to read. |
|---|
|
|---|
| Hanlon’s Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. If something looks like a grand conspiracy or an evil master plan, chances are it’s just someone being an idiot. Sagan Standard: Positive claims require positive evidence, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In other words - big claims need big receipts. Morton’s Fork: A false dilemma in which contradictory observations lead to the same conclusion. No matter what happens, the conclusion stays the same: heads they win, tails you lose. Duck Test: Classification based on observable evidence. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck… The Zebra: An exotic diagnosis in medicine which is usually unnecessary and wrong. Some doctors need to be reminded to think more horse, less unicorn. This is also a surefire sign that you've watched too much House. Morgan’s Canon: Law of parsimony in comparative (animal) psychology. If a simple explanation works, use it. Newton’s Flaming Laser Sword: If something cannot be settled by experiment or observation, then it is not worthy of debate. Move on. |
|---|
|
|---|
| Disclaimer
Our content is intended to be used and must be used for informational purposes only. You must do your own analysis before executing any investments or strategic decisions, based on your own circumstances. We do not provide personalised recommendations or views as to whether an investment approach or corporate strategy is suited to the needs of a specific individual or entity. You should take independent financial advice from a suitably qualified individual who gives due regard to your personal circumstances.
Whilst every care is taken, we accept no responsibility or liability for any errors or omissions in any of our content.
The views, thoughts and opinions expressed in our content belong solely to the author or quoted individuals and/or entities, and not necessarily to the author's employer, organisation, committee or other group or individual, or any of our affiliates or brand partners. |
|---|
|
|---|
|
|
